Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligencetrialtestimonycorporationcircumstantial evidencesustained
tortnegligencetrialtestimonycircumstantial evidence

Related Cases

Wilson v. Kuenzi, 751 S.W.2d 741
View Case »
Yun Tung Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 29, 950 N.E.2d 113, 926 N.Y.S.2d 377, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 18,628, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03888
View Case »
Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 3 Cal.4th 370, 834 P.2d 745, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 61 USLW 2145, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,978, 48 A.L.R.5th 835
View Case »
Wells v. Orthwein, 670 S.W.2d 529
View Case »
Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N.W.2d 771, 62 USLW 2102
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sherman v. Concourse Realty Corp., 47 A.D.2d 134, 365 N.Y.S.2d 239

Facts

Sol Sherman, a tenant, was assaulted and robbed in the lobby of his apartment building, which was owned by Concourse Realty Corporation. The lobby entrance door had a broken lock for at least a week prior to the incident, which allowed the assailant to enter the building. The landlord had previously increased rents to install a security buzzer system, which became inoperative due to the removal of the door lock for repairs. The tenant testified that he entered the lobby and was attacked shortly after the door closed behind him.

The uncontroverted evidence established that for at least a week prior to the incident the lock on the lobby entrance door was inoperative, thus permitting unimpeded entry into the building.

Issue

Whether a landlord's negligent maintenance of residential premises can be the basis for holding him liable for personal injuries inflicted upon a tenant by a criminal intruder in a common area.

Whether a landlord's negligent maintenance of residential premises may be the predicate for holding him liable in tort for personal injuries inflicted upon a tenant by a criminal intruder in a common area of the premises.

Rule

A landlord may be held liable for injuries to tenants caused by criminal acts of third parties if the landlord's negligence in maintaining the premises is found to be a proximate cause of those injuries.

The rule applicable to the instant case is expressed in Restatement, Torts 2d, s 449 as follows: 'If the likelihood that a third person may act in a particular manner is the hazard or one of the hazards which makes the actor negligent, such an act whether innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal does not prevent the actor from being liable for harm caused thereby.'

Analysis

The court found that the tenant's testimony provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that the assailant entered through the lobby door with the broken lock. The landlord had actual knowledge of the defective condition and prior criminal activity in the area, which established a duty to maintain the security system. The court rejected the landlord's argument that the criminal act of the intruder severed the causal link between the landlord's negligence and the tenant's injuries.

The fact that the immediate cause of the tenant's injury was the act of a third party, i.e., a criminal intruder, does not prevent the landlord's negligence from being regarded in contemplation of law as the proximate cause.

Conclusion

The court reversed the trial court's judgment and granted a new trial, concluding that the landlord's negligence could be considered a proximate cause of the tenant's injuries.

Accordingly, the judgment should be reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Who won?

The tenant, Sol Sherman, prevailed because the court found that the landlord's negligence in maintaining the security of the building was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the tenant.

The tenant's testimony, if credited by the jury, constituted sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the assailant was an intruder who entered the lobby by pushing open the lockless lobby entrance door.

You must be