Related Articles: Commercial Landlord

Terrorism Security: Landlord's Obligation?

Are landlords obligated to protect occupants and visitors from terrorist attacks at their property? A landlord may be found liable to the victim of a crime, if the victim can prove the following: (1) the attack was foreseeable; (2) the landlord had a duty to protect the victim; (3) the landlord breached its duty to protect the victim; and (4) the breach of duty was the proximate cause of the attack and the victim's injuries. Over the past 2 decades there has been an increasing body of cases against landlords for crimes committed on their property. The main tests adopted by the courts to determine the issue of foreseeability are: (1) Prior Similar Crimes Test - has the same specific crime been committed; or (2) Totality of the Circumstances Test - sufficient prior criminal activity on the property or the area combined with an analysis of architecture of the property. Some cases of interest are:

In the Matter of World Trade Center Bombing Litigation: Victims of terrorist bombing in 1993 seek to sue Port Authority, owner of the World Trade Center, for injuries and damages. In order to pursue a case of failure to implement security measures the victims seek to obtain WTC security plans and documents. On appeal the court denies these documents on the basis that it would be against the public interest to have these security plans and studies released to the public. The court declined to rule on the availability of such documents for private owners.Nottingham Associates v. Gloria Jean Christian: Circuit Court of City of Richmond ruled that a tenant was constructively evicted because the landlord failed to control common areas of the apartment complex from persistent drug-related criminal activity.Laura Jean Deem v. Charles E. Smith Management, Inc. (1986): Tenant/resident manager seeks damages from her landlord/employer for damages suffered from being beaten and raped in the parking lot of her apartment building. The U.S. Eastern District Court rules that Virginia common law does not impose a duty on landlords to protect tenants from intentional criminal acts committed by unknown third parties. Principle of law upheld in L.L. v. Chinmes District of Columbia, Inc. (2001)Felisha Nails v. Community Realty Company (1998): Tenants sues for assault and death occurring in on committed in the parking lot of their apartment building. U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Maryland law imposes a duty on landlords to exercise reasonable care for the safety of tenants. The duty to take protective measures must result from criminal activity on the premises and not the neighborhood. Plaintiff's case was dismissed because there was insufficient knowledge of criminal activity on the premises to require landlord to take protective measures. In Thatcher v. TC Operating LP (1999), the same court upheld the dismissal of a similar case holding that criminal activity in a nearby complex and the neighborhood did not impose a duty on the landlord.Yuzefovsky v. St. John's Wood Apartments (Supreme Court of Virginia State Corporation Commission)(Decided January 12, 2001): Prior to signing the lease, Plaintiff had specifically inquired about the safety of the apartment building. The property manager stated that the development was "safe", that police officers lived in the development and that police vehicles patrolled the development. The tenant sued the landlord for being shot by a sawed-off shotgun in the common area of the development. After the shooting the tenant learned that in 1 year there were 656 crimes reported in the vicinity and within 3 years there were 257 crimes (including 5 robberies and 8 aggravated assaults) reported in the development. Thus, it was proven that the landlord's employee had misrepresented that the development was safe and crime-free and that police lived in and patrolled the development.Plaintiff's lawsuit theories were: (1) the misrepresentations of the landlord was fraud; (2) landlord had a duty to warn tenant of the violent crime within the development; (3) landlord knew about the unsafe conditions and thus had a duty to protect tenants; and (4) the landlord/tenant relationship is a special relationship which creates a duty to warn and protect tenants from foreseeable dangers.The Virginia Supreme Court held that there is no "special relationship" between tenant and landlord, giving rise to a duty to warn or protect tenants. While the Court recognizes that there may be such a duty, it rarely finds circumstances warranting its application. The court agreed that the Landlord has a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions, but reiterated that the landlord is not an insurer of a tenant's safety. The Court did enumerate some circumstances under with the landlord might be held liable for a criminal assault, including if the landlord knows that criminal assaults were occurring or were about to occur on the premises. With this knowledge there would be a heightened degree of foreseeable harm that would impose a duty on landlord to protect tenants and invitees.While the Court concluded that the statements of the property manager were fraudulent, it found that the fraud was too remote from the criminal assault to give rise to liability. The Court stated that there might be a contract claim based upon fraudulent inducement, but not a claim for negligence. (See also Miller v. Charles E. Smith, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (2001) which follows this ruling in a case involving the death of a tenant)Jane Doe v. Dominion Bank of Washington (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit)(Decided May 2, 1992): Plaintiff, an employee of a tenant, was raped during the workday in an unlocked office on a vacant floor. Plaintiff alleged that the landlord had a duty to take reasonable measures to shield the tenants' employees from criminal conduct of third parties. The trial court concluded that the landlord had a duty to protect tenant only from foreseeable conduct and dismissed the case because it found that the rape was not a foreseeable result of any of the deficiencies in landlord's security measures.Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg, who is now a Supreme Court Justice, wrote the opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals and reversed the ruling of the District Court. The opinion states that "a commercial landlord must exercise reasonable care to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal conduct occurring in common areas under the landlord's control" but that "D.C. law imposes a heightened standard of foreseeability on plaintiffs seeking to hold a landlord liable for injuries resulting from a criminal act."The Court found sufficient evidence to send the case to the jury. The evidence included: deficient building security - unsecured vacant floors and offices, freely accessible via unlocked stairwells and unprogrammed elevators; criminal or unauthorized conduct within the building, including a burglary, thefts of personal and office property, drug use, and sexual activity; and tenant complaints of threatening and aggressive intruders appearing in the building in the month immediately preceding the rape.

With this case as precedent, the District of Columbia imposes a higher duty on commercial landlords than many jurisdictions, especially since it did not find persuasive the landlord's arguments that plaintiff failed to prove that the building at 1430 K Street was not in a high crime neighborhood. This case is now being cited in other jurisdictions, such as Maryland and Iowa