Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1970 · Torts

TortsLandlord-tenantPremises liabilityDuty to protect against third-party crimelandlord dutythird-party criminal actsforeseeabilitycommon areas

Facts

Kline was seriously injured when an intruder assaulted and robbed her at about 10:15 p.m. in the common hallway outside her apartment in a 585-unit apartment building. When she first leased in 1959, the building had substantial security measures, including a 24-hour doorman at the main entrance, a constantly manned lobby desk, observation at the 15th Street entrance, and the 16th Street entrance locked after 9:00 p.m. By mid-1966 those protections had been drastically reduced, even as assaults, larcenies, and robberies in and from the common hallways increased, and the landlord had notice of those crimes. Two months before Kline's attack, another female tenant had been similarly attacked in the same commonway.

Issue

Whether a landlord of a multiple-unit urban apartment building has a duty to take steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts committed by third parties in common areas under the landlord's control, and if so whether that duty was breached here.

Rule

A landlord is not an insurer of tenant safety, but where the landlord has notice of repeated criminal acts occurring on portions of the premises exclusively within the landlord's control, has reason to expect similar acts to recur, and has the exclusive ability to take preventive measures, the landlord owes tenants a duty to take reasonable steps within the landlord's power to minimize the predictable risk. The governing standard of care is reasonable care in all the circumstances, and in this case the applicable benchmark was maintenance of the same relative degree of security the landlord provided when the tenant first leased the premises.

🔒

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.

Maya Ortiz rents an apartment in a 300-unit building in Baltimore owned by Harbor Crest Residential. Over six months, tenants repeatedly report muggings and attempted break-ins in the lobby and stairwells, and the property manager receives police incident summaries. After the company stops staffing the front desk at night and leaves a side entrance unsecured, Maya is attacked in the stairwell by an unknown intruder.

Is Harbor Crest most likely subject to a duty to take protective measures under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a landlord of an urban multiple-unit building owes a duty to take reasonable protective measures against third-party crime when the landlord has notice of repeated crimes in common areas under its exclusive control, has reason to expect similar crimes to recur, and has the exclusive ability to take preventive action. The landlord is not an insurer, but must minimize predictable risks within its power. (Derived from Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Co. (n.d.).)