California landlords have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. This duty extends to their obligation "to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties." Real estate attorney/author Robert Bruss has drawn our attention to a recent case (Barber v. Chang) that reaffirms this duty, though in a manner that does not provide a lot of clear direction to landlords.
William Wu-Ye Chang was the owner of a four-unit building in Anaheim. Leroy Barber, his companion, Chanda, and their children moved into the complex in 1995. Later, Chanda's mother, Jean, occupied another unit. Barber and Chanda moved out in 2002. During the time they had lived there, there had been occasional confrontations with a teenage tenant, Daniel, who had exhibited a variety of odd behaviors.
Subsequent to moving out, Chanda frequently visited her mother, with whom her son, Christopher, had remained to live. During one of those visits, Daniel engaged in strange, hostile behavior toward them, culminating in his bringing a shotgun from his own apartment. He pointed the shotgun at both Chanda and her mother.
Jean sent a certified letter to Chang's son, who managed the fourplex. The letter described the incident, telling Chang that she feared for her life. She said she had not contacted the police, because she didn't want further trouble, but she implored him to "do something about this problem so that I will again feel safe in my home." Chang responded that he could take no action unless she filed a police report. He also suggested that Jean speak with Daniel's mother.
About three weeks later, Barber was at the complex, getting a tool from Jean's garage. Daniel shot him twice with the shotgun (having first called 911 and telling the police that he was going to shoot Barber). After a standoff with the police, Daniel surrendered. Barber's injuries were not fatal.
Barber subsequently filed a complaint against Chang alleging negligence and that Chang had breached his duty of care by "failing to take reasonable steps to provide security for Plaintiff from known threats and conditions present at the rented premises." Chang moved for summary judgment (essentially, dismissal) on the grounds that he owed Barber no duty of care. He claimed "there was no reasonable security measure that should have been in place," and that it is "unreasonable for a landlord to be expected to hire a security guard to protect a non-resident who may have a confrontation with a tenant … ."
The trial court granted Chang's motion for summary judgment. Barber appealed, and the Fourth Appellate District Court reversed, sending the case back for trial. In doing so, the appellate court explained the complex relationship between a landlord's duty of care, the foreseeability of an incident, and the scope of the landlord's duty.
The court noted that a landlord has "a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party … where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated." The foreseeability of a criminal act determines not only the landlord's duty, but also its "scope," which "is determined in part by balancing the foreseeability of harm against the burden to be imposed."
The court believed that Chang had sufficient notice via Jean's letter. That "would alert a reasonably prudent landlord [that] Daniel posed a risk of serious injury to other tenants and invitees." The court acknowledged that hiring a security guard might have been unduly burdensome on Chang, but "a landlord's duty may nevertheless include less burdensome steps." Threat of eviction might have been "a lever of control" which "a landlord could use to protect others." Chang might have called the police himself, the court observed. Suggesting that Jean call them didn't absolve him of a responsibility to do something.
The appellate court didn't say that Chang had a particular duty to do this or that; only that he had failed to establish that he had no duty to do anything. That, they said, was a question of fact for a jury to decide.
Suppose you are a California landlord with a problem tenant like Daniel. Barber v. Chang doesn't tell you what to do; but it makes it pretty clear that you ought to do something. Good luck out there.
