Einhorn v. Seeley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · Torts

Tortsdutynegligenceprivitythird-party beneficiaryspecial relationshipintervening criminal actlandlord security

Facts

Lori Einhorn was allegedly assaulted and raped in a building at 15 East 21st Street after being accosted on the second-floor landing and dragged to a third-floor apartment she was visiting. Plaintiffs claimed the building's front door lock was so defective that it could be opened with a firm push even when locked, and that Rem, a locksmith hired by the landlord, had improperly installed or repaired it. Lori was not a tenant at the time of the attack; she was the fiancée of tenant Kenneth Einhorn and did not marry him until nearly two years later. The assailant was concededly not a tenant and was a stranger to both plaintiffs and defendants.

Issue

Whether a locksmith hired by a landlord to install or repair a building's front door lock owes a contractual or tort duty to a tenant's guest who is injured by the criminal act of a third party allegedly entering through the defective lock. More specifically, the question was whether such a nonprivity plaintiff could recover against the locksmith on either contract or negligence theories.

Rule

A defendant may be liable for negligence only when it breaches a duty owed to the plaintiff. Absent privity, a contractual duty does not run to a plaintiff who is merely an incidental beneficiary, and tort law does not impose a duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party unless a recognized special relationship exists between the defendant and the third person or between the defendant and the victim; courts must limit the orbit of duty as a matter of public policy.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Brooklyn, Harbor Row Apartments hired Metro Key & Lock Co. to service the front entrance lock. Two weeks later, Nina Patel, a tenant's dinner guest, was assaulted in the hallway by an unknown intruder who allegedly entered because the door still popped open when pushed.

If Nina sues Metro Key & Lock Co. for negligence, what is the strongest argument for summary judgment in the locksmith's favor?

Explanation. The majority held that negligence requires breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff, and that a locksmith hired by a landlord does not owe a tort duty to a tenant's guest for harm caused by a stranger's criminal act, absent a recognized special relationship. The absence of privity is not alone dispositive, but here there is no special relationship with either the victim or the assailant, and policy limits the orbit of duty. (Derived from Einhorn v. Seeley (n.d.).)