In the past several weeks courts around the country have been re-examining
the responsibility of a property owner to those who are victims of crimes or
are injured on the premises, but there appears to be little consistency in
the rulings.
Last week the California Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision
against the owner of a parking lot where a woman was raped. The high court
said the woman could not sue for damages by claiming the lot was "inherently
dangerous" and therefore obligated to provide security.
Said the high court, "Were we to find that the occurrence of violent crime in
commercial underground parking structures is highly foreseeable as a matter
of law, we would be opening the door to virtually limitless litigation over
what other types of property could also be characterized as 'inherently
dangerous.'''
Recently in Washington state, however, an appellate court ruled just the
opposite - that an owner, in this case an apartment owner, does have a duty
to protect residents from criminal conduct by other residents, especially if
the conduct could be foreseen (West RS Inc. v. Griffin, 1999 WL 781678,
October 4, 1999.)
The Washington court said that a "special relationship" exists between an
owner and resident and therefore the management does have an affirmative duty
to the resident and need only exercise ordinary care in its actions to
protect the resident.
In Florida, that same argument recently failed - though the court hedged a
bit. The court denied a resident's claim that the building owner was
obligated to install a peephole in the resident's door.
The court said a property owner generally has a duty to protect residents
from criminal attacks by third parties but "only if the property owner knows
or should know prior similar acts were committed on the premises." (Menendez
v. Palms West Condo Assn., 736 So.2d 58, June 2, 1999.)
Still, in New York an appellate court upheld a $1 million judgment against an
owner for a woman who was beaten and robbed in the property's hallway.
(Brewster v. Prince Apartments, Inc., 695 N.Y.S.2d 315, September 16,
1999.)
The woman claimed the owner was negligent after failing to repair a broken
front door lock after several months. The appeals court ruled that the woman
did not need to demonstrate "conclusive" proof of proximate
cause as long as the jury could reasonably infer that her attacker was a
trespasser who entered through the door.
Also in New York, an appeals court recently upheld a damage award to a
resident who fell from a second story window while sitting on a rotting
window sill. (Barrett v. Lusk, 695 N.Y.S.2d 776, Oct. 14, 1999.)
The court opinion said that while the law does not require owners to guard
against "obvious dangers created by the misuse of property," the property
must not be defective.
Because the owners were indisputably aware of the window defects, the court
ruled the plaintiff was entitled to damages.
Published: December 23, 1999
Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.
