Texas Supreme Court Weighed Mall Negligence Lawsuit
The court reviewed a request to dismiss claims against owners after a fatal 2023 mass shooting in Allen.
Updated on Sept. 20, 2026 in Criminal Justice
Live Poll
Should private property owners be held legally responsible for preventing mass violence on their premises?
The Texas Supreme Court has considered dismissing a negligence lawsuit filed against the owners of Allen Premium Outlets. Plaintiffs allege that Simon Property Group failed to provide adequate security at the site where a mass shooting occurred in May 2023.
Why it matters
The case tests whether property owners hold legal liability for preventing third-party criminal acts. A ruling could redefine security requirements for large commercial spaces across the state.
A trial court and a state appeals court previously denied the request to dismiss the negligence petition filed in August 2024. The matter remains pending before the state's highest court.
The players
Texas Supreme Court
This body serves as the court of last resort for civil matters in the state of Texas.
Simon Property Group
This company is a major real estate investment trust that owns and operates retail properties like Allen Premium Outlets.
Mauricio Martinez Garcia
He was identified as the shooter who carried out the May 2023 attack at the mall.
The details
Plaintiffs claim the mall lacked sufficient alarms and communication systems, citing a separate shooting call occurring just six days before the incident. Defendants maintain that Texas law does not mandate that property owners protect against criminal acts committed by third parties.
Timeline
Between 2020 and 2023, the mall received over 3,000 police calls.
On April 30, 2023, a shooting call was allegedly reported at the mall.
On May 6, 2023, a mass shooting occurred at the facility leaving 15 casualties.
In August 2024, plaintiffs filed the original negligence petition.
Legal Context
This case tests the limits of long-standing Texas legal doctrines that generally shield property owners from liability for third-party criminal acts. The outcome may signal a shift in how courts interpret duty of care in large-scale retail environments.
The court's decision will determine if victims of mall violence can seek damages based on the security staffing levels of retail properties. This may force shopping centers to reassess their security protocols and public communication systems.
The takeaway
The resolution of this case will set a significant precedent for how Texas businesses manage security in high-traffic public areas. Property owners and legal experts are closely monitoring the court to see if current liability protections remain unchanged.
Further reading
For more background on state judicial proceedings, see Criminal Justice.
Live Poll
Should private property owners be held legally responsible for preventing mass violence on their premises?
