The California Court of Appeal recently found that a landlord has no duty to warn other tenants after another tenant on the property was the victim of a random act of violence on the property. (1) The case involves a six unit complex in Lawndale, CA that was gated, had locked entry doors with an intercom system, and enclosed garages controlled by an automatic gate operated by a remote control.
In the first incident, a tenant came home with his friend and was assaulted by a male with a knife. After investigation, it was determined that the male assailant was a friend of the tenant’s ex-girlfriend who said he wanted the tenant dead. The resident manager concluded it was an isolated incident, changed the locks to the apartment, and did not notify other tenants of the incident.
In the second incident, a female tenant came home to her apartment with her daughter to find three assailants inside her apartment armed with knives and a handgun. The assailants threatened the tenant with rape, made her undress, and forced her to tell them where her employer kept some money. One assailant remained with the tenant and her daughter in the apartment while the other two went to the employer’s office to retrieve the money. Upon investigation, there was no sign of forced entry as the assailants entered through an open kitchen window.
Later, the resident manager saw the same assailants enter the first tenant victim’s apartment who were found to be the perpetrators of the second crime. Two days later, the resident manager warned all residents of the criminal activity. It was determined that the same perpetrator was involved in both incidents.
The second victims filed a lawsuit against the landlord because he failed to warn of criminal activity after the first incident. The trial court granted the landlord’s request for summary judgment and thus dismissed the case, and the tenants appealed the decision.
In general, one does not owe a duty to protect others from the conduct of third parties; however, landlords owe a duty to tenants to take reasonable measures to secure areas under the landlord’s control against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. Whether a duty is owed depends on the following factors:
In most situations, courts will look to what the plaintiff alleges the landlord should specifically have done to avoid the harm. Then, it will look at the social and financial burden to the landlord for imposing these specific measures. Next, the court will look at whether if these measures had been implemented, whether a third party’s conduct would still be foreseeable. Thus, the higher the probability of criminal conduct, the more likely a court will find that a landlord had to impose some sort of safety measures. However, if criminal conduct is not very foreseeable, the less likely a court will find that a landlord would have to impose some measures.
Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the landlord had a duty to tell other tenants of the first incident even though it appeared that the assailant had been a friend of the victim’s ex-girlfriend and was thus not a random act. The Court found that this would be minimally burdensome because it would only have involved providing notice to other tenants that an incident occurred and to be on guard.
However, the Court found that the second incident was not foreseeable as a result of the first incident. The second incident involved the assailants waiting for their victims, a home invasion, kidnapping, and robbery while the first incident was an assault and attempted homicide by an acquaintance of the victim. The Court agreed with the trial court that these two incidents were not similar enough for the second incident to be considered foreseeable because the first attack was not done to random victim.
It is important to note that the first attack was a result of someone being targeted while the second attack was random. If there had been some connection between the two incidents, then arguably there would have been a duty to at least notify the other tenants of the first attack. It is also important to note that the resident manager notified other tenants of the second attack because it was random. Although the same person was involved in both incidents, the Court differentiated between the two because of the intent involved. The first involved a fight between two acquaintances, while the second was a random act.
It is important for landlords and residential managers to carefully judge what specific safety measures must be imposed after a crime occurs on the premises. Please contact Anthony Marinaccio at (562) 699-5500 or amarinaccio@agclawfirm.com for more information regarding these issuers and other real estate or landlord-tenant matters.
(1) Flores v. Windsor Properties 2010 WL 1614500 (No. B215027) Court of Appeal, 2d Dist., Div. 3, April 22, 2010.The foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff;
