Enter your email address for weekly access to top multifamily blogs!

All Things Property Management

All Things Property Management is a one-stop destination for folks interested in learning more about managing real estate. Broken down into a variety of targeted columns, the information that you are looking for is easily accessible — from investing tips and best practices in The Intelligent Investor to the real-life dilemmas of property managers in Stories from the Front Lines. We’ve brought on contributing writers from across the country to share their respective expertise with you, whether you’re a landlord, a professional property manager, or an association board member. Your feedback, participation, and comments will help us deliver the information you need most.

Your Landlord's Duty to Prevent Criminal Acts

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

Over the last few posts, we’ve discussed premises liability, landlord duties, and obvious dangers, among other things. Today we’ll discuss an issue in California that gets people excited - a landlord’s duty to prevent criminal acts.Buildium property management software

Nothing gets people more excited than the idea that a landlord might have an affirmative duty to prevent or intervene in the actions of a third party to prevent a person on his or her property from becoming the victim of a crime. On the face of it, this duty feels like it falls outside the scope of a landlord’s duties. Isn’t that the job of the police? A property owner can’t be a substitute for the police and common sense, the argument goes.

That may be true, but if we rely on common negligence principles – and California courts do – then liability can attach in certain circumstances for failure to take steps to mitigate against such third party criminal conduct.

The owner/lessor/occupier/person who controls the property has a “general duty [which] includes not only the duty to inspect the premises in order to uncover dangerous conditions, but, as well, the duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons which threaten [persons on the property] where [he] has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of injury resulting therefrom.”*

The key to attaching liability is the part about having “reasonable cause to anticipate” the criminal activity and the likelihood of harm. In other words, if the landlord knows that his rented property is being used by violent drug dealers to conduct criminal activity, he may have a duty to act. If the landlord knows that the lack of lighting in the property’s parking garage has contributed to muggings, he may have a duty to act to prevent injury.

The scope of the duty to act is tied to the knowledge of potential injury which would occur by the third party criminal act. As we’ve previously seen in my post about replacing window glass, the scope of the requested action there was very small: replace a window pane for $17 dollars. The duty imposed there was not to hire security guards to prevent murder, but merely to replace a broken window pane that was close to the door handle and lock. It is not unreasonable to think that someone might have broken into the house if the pane was not replaced.

A different situation arises if the integrity of the property is not an issue but knowledge of criminal activity is. Fights happen. A landlord is not usually liable for a one-off fight. But he may be if he knows that fights are continually occurring on his property. The scope of the duty for a landlord or business owner to provide something akin to security guards exists “only when ‘heightened’ foreseeability of third party criminal activity on the premises exists—shown by prior similar incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults in that location.”** Does the California rule make sense?

* Taken from Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc.,  65 Cal. 2d 114, 121 (Cal.1966)
** Taken from Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal. 4th 224, 240 (Cal. 2005)

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information.  It does not constitute legal advice.  The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients.  No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto.  If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

Rate this blog entry:
0
 
This comment was minimized by the moderator on the site

California as a whole doesn't make sense, but the rule does bring to light the responsibilities "Many" absent owners totally have no intent of addressing. The vagueness or open ended approach leaves more questions than answers. Like the term - "reasonable" will depend on what side of the room your on.

Security, everyday I engage Property Managers/Owners/firms about what is reasonable action to at minimum "deter" potential activities. And yes, we have clients on both side of the spectrum. If there is no City Code, make a minimal effort. On the other side, "I want facial recognition and off my property" The question your asking is one more correct than other?

Let's address that by asking do Police "deter" or respond to activity. I can only speak of areas in my region. If possible LE would enjoy ANY assistance in detering activity so they can concentrate on Responding, which at times is difficult enough.

Without waving a Vendor flag, you would figure the least you would want to do is protect your revenue stream which should be the main reason you have the property in the first place. On the other side, a main reason "rules" like this surface is an effort to address the other problem many turn a blind eye to, Vacant Properties. {which is a whole different thread of topics}

Chicago like most cities across the country is slowly addressing by passing ordinaces that "reflect" corrective action toward Security without ever using the word. Lighting, landscape, fenced areas, Covered Parking

In response - if you know of "heightened" probability because of previous activity why do you need a "Rule" to encourage(force)you to do something? Just my thoughts.

  John Feeney

Comment Below

  1. Posting comment as a guest. Sign up or login to your account.
Attachments (0 / 3)
Share Your Location
So the other day I’m doing a little bit of shopping at Wal-Mart trying to figure out how I can save money and live better, when I realize I have no idea where I am. I mean, I knew I was somewhere between desk chairs and cat food, but since I was looking for cotton balls—for a project—I wasn’t sure if I should turn left at the beanbags, or right. I decided to ask Barry for help; he looked nice enough.  Me: Hi, Barry. Do you have cotton balls? Barry: Uh… Me: The...
I came across a blog post1 the other day that discussed the cost a company incurs because of poor customer service.  One of the surprising statistics that stuck out to me was that 97% of customers don't complain or vent their frustrations, even when they are unhappy with a product or service. I should clarify that they are certainly venting to their friends, families, work associates and the pizza deliveryman about how horrendous this product or that service is... But they're not ...
My daughter and I love Chick fil-A and end up going there a couple of times a month as a treat for the both of us. Now, no matter what time I go there, it always seems busy! This has been true in restaurants that I’ve gone to in both California and Colorado. In fact, when I managed a community in Colorado we knew that if we didn’t get to our local Chick Fil-A by 11:15 am,  we were going to be stuck in a long line.    Besides the food, I love the level of service that they provid...