ALWD CITATION- When do I cite?

For this exercise, you will use a set of facts about a fictitious client and two actual cases. You will be given sentences taken in order from a hypothetical discussion section in a legal memorandum. You will need to decide whether each sentence requires a citation to one of the given cases.

If you determine that the sentence does not require a citation, then simply leave the space after the sentence blank. (If you are doing this exercise on the website, type "no citation" in plain type in the solution box and click "submit.") If you determine that the sentence does require a citation, then simply type either "Exxon" or "Gonzalez" in plain type (and without a period) as applicable.

This exercise emphasizes the placement, rather than the form, of citation. Accordingly, when a citation is required, you should type "Exxon" or "Gonzalez" regardless of whether a full, short, or "id." form ought to be used and regardless of whether a pinpoint cite ought to be included.

Facts: Your client is Kendall Loeb. Mr. Loeb lives across the street from a convenience store, The Quik Shop. On August 7, 2001, in the parking lot of the store, Mr. Loeb had an argument with another customer. The customer threatened to kill him and then sped out of the parking lot. Mr. Loeb asked the store attendant, who heard the threat, to call the police, and the attendant refused. As Mr. Loeb was walking back to his house, the customer returned in his truck and hit Mr. Loeb with the truck. Mr. Loeb has filed suit against the store for negligently failing to protect him from the other customer's assault.

Cases: Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell, 867 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1993). This is the most recent Texas Supreme Court opinion that states the general rule that a landowner has no duty to protect invitees on the premises from criminal acts of third parties. An exception to this rule occurs when the owner both has direct control of the safety and security of the premises and could have foreseen the criminal acts. This case does not focus on the "foreseeability" exception. The rule and exceptions are stated on page 20 of the court's opinion.

Gonzalez v. S. Dallas Club, 951 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. 1992). This case focuses on the "foreseeability" exception. The court specifies the circumstances in which a criminal act would be foreseeable. The court's holding and rationale are on page 76. The facts appear on page 73.

1-The court held that an owner cannot foresee a later criminal act when he takes all necessary steps to provide for the safety of a customer by making sure that the customer leaves the premises safely.

2-Although the store attendant knew that Mr. Loeb had been threatened, he made no attempt to help Mr. Loeb leave the premises safely as the manager in Gonzalez had done.

3-The events of August 7 are very different from the events discussed in Gonzalez.

4-In Gonzalez v. S. Dallas Club, the Court of Appeals held that an owner could not have foreseen a later injury to a patron when the manager escorted the patron through the back door of the club following a confrontation and watched her drive away.

5-In addition, the attendant did not call the police to protect Mr. Loeb even though Mr. Loeb specifically asked him to call.

6-In our case, the parties do not dispute that the owner of The Quik Shop and his agents had direct control over the safety and security of the premises. However, the parties do disagree about whether the criminal acts were foreseeable.

7-In Texas, the plaintiff in a successful cause of action for negligent failure to protect must demonstrate that a store owner or his agent (1) had direct control over the safety and security of the premises, and (2) could have foreseen the criminal act that resulted in the plaintiff's injury.

8-In Texas, an owner who operates a business in a high-crime area can foresee that criminal acts may occur on the premises. Additionally, an owner can foresee that a confrontation on the premises may lead to a criminal act off the premises when one customer threatens another before leaving the premises.

9-The owner of The Quik Shop clearly should have foreseen that a confrontation beginning on the premises would result in a criminal act off the premises.

10-To prove that a criminal act is foreseeable, we will have to show that the owner or his agent knew or should have known that assault was the type of crime that routinely occurred in that area or that the specific confrontation would result in criminal assault once the parties left the premises.