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

plaintiffappealtrialduty of care
plaintiffappealtrialduty of care

Related Cases

Sanders v. Frank, 37 N.E.3d 1305, 2015-Ohio-3644
View Case »
Weir v. East Ohio Gas Co., Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2003 WL 1194080, 2003 -Ohio- 1229
View Case »
Smith v. Cutter Biological, Inc., a Div. of Miles Inc., 72 Haw. 416, 823 P.2d 717, 60 USLW 2399, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,056
View Case »
Doll v. Brown, 75 F.3d 1200, 64 USLW 2563, 5 A.D. Cases 369
View Case »
Baxter v. Woodward, 191 Mich. 379, 158 N.W. 137, Am.Ann.Cas. 1918C,946
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tan v. Arnel Management Co., 170 Cal.App.4th 1087, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 754, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1308, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1499

Facts

Plaintiffs moved into the Pheasant Ridge Apartments in July 2002. On December 28, 2002, Tan was shot in the neck during an attempted carjacking while parking in the leasing office lot, which was outside the gated area of the complex. Prior to this incident, there had been three violent attacks in the common areas of the complex, which the plaintiffs argued demonstrated a pattern of violence that the landlords should have foreseen and addressed with additional security measures.

Plaintiffs moved into the Pheasant Ridge Apartments in July 2002. On December 28, 2002, Tan was shot in the neck during an attempted carjacking while parking in the leasing office lot, which was outside the gated area of the complex. Prior to this incident, there had been three violent attacks in the common areas of the complex, which the plaintiffs argued demonstrated a pattern of violence that the landlords should have foreseen and addressed with additional security measures.

Issue

Did the landlords have a duty to provide additional security measures to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts based on prior incidents of violence on the premises?

Did the landlords have a duty to provide additional security measures to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts based on prior incidents of violence on the premises?

Rule

The court applied the principle that a landowner's duty to protect against foreseeable third-party criminal acts is determined by balancing the foreseeability of harm against the burden of the proposed security measures.

The court applied the principle that a landowner's duty to protect against foreseeable third-party criminal acts is determined by balancing the foreseeability of harm against the burden of the proposed security measures.

Analysis

The court found that the three prior violent incidents were sufficiently similar to the attack on Tan to establish foreseeability. The proposed security measures, which included moving existing gates and installing additional gates, were deemed minimal and not overly burdensome. The court concluded that the landlords had a duty to implement these measures to enhance tenant safety.

The court found that the three prior violent incidents were sufficiently similar to the attack on Tan to establish foreseeability. The proposed security measures, which included moving existing gates and installing additional gates, were deemed minimal and not overly burdensome. The court concluded that the landlords had a duty to implement these measures to enhance tenant safety.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the landlords had a duty to provide minimal security measures due to the foreseeability of violent incidents on the property.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the landlords had a duty to provide minimal security measures due to the foreseeability of violent incidents on the property.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the evidence of prior violent incidents established a duty of care on the part of the landlords to provide minimal security measures.

Plaintiffs prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the evidence of prior violent incidents established a duty of care on the part of the landlords to provide minimal security measures.

You must be