 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cole v. Pine Ridge Apartments Company II12/21/2001
ge Valley Apartments.
" *
"4. TERMS
" *
"CUSTOMER understands and agrees that the duties of any security guards * of [D.R.P.] provided to CUSTOMER hereunder are limited to surveillance and assistance in the protection of life, property, * and duties of said employees of [D.R.P. do] not warrant CUSTOMER against any casualty."
Hill and Latham testified that they were required to perform foot patrols every two hours beginning at 8 p.m., even though that language was not contained in the agreement between DRP, Morris, Pine Ridge, and Goldberg. Hill and Latham explained that one guard was to do the foot patrol while the other remained at the gatehouse. On the date of the murder, Latham was performing his foot patrol, when around 3:30 a.m., Hill called him back to the gatehouse to assist with Giancola, who was intoxicated. As a result, he did not finish his foot patrol. Aquilla stated that he had been in the complex since 2:30 a.m., spent thirty minutes walking around looking into cars, and proceeded to Steve and Lillian's apartment. After he tried to gain access into the apartment through the main entrance, he went to the window and tried to gain access through it for thirty minutes. Aquilla finally entered the apartment through the sliding glass door, which took about five minutes, and then he murdered JoAnne.
It is our view that at the time Aquilla tried to gain access through the main entrance of the apartment, which would have been between around 3:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m., Latham was performing his foot patrol. Based on Latham's deposition testimony and Aquilla's affidavit, the evidence was insufficient to substantiate that Latham would have intercepted Aquilla at the critical time in question. Neither of their respective testimonies indicated that if Latham would have completed his foot patrol, he would have seen Aquilla, who was at the glass sliding door at around the time Latham was called back to the gatehouse. Therefore, we are unable to discern how Latham's failure to complete the foot patrol was the proximate cause of JoAnne's murder, as Latham would not have seen Aquilla. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of DRP, Morris, Hill, and Latham.
We will now examine whether there were any genuine issues of material fact as to Goldberg and Pine Ridge. In Doe v. Beach House Dev. Co. (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 573, a landlord's liability for criminal acts injuring its tenants was addressed. The Beach House court quoted from Doe v. Flair Corp. (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 739, and held that:
"`In order to establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must establish a duty owed by the defendants a breach of that duty which proximately results in an injury . Jeffers v. Olexo (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 140 *. As a general rule, landlords have no duty to protect their tenants from the criminal acts of third persons. Thomas v. Hart Realty, Inc. (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 83, 86 *; Sciascia v. Riverpark Apts. (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 164, 166 *; Johnson v. Monroe Realty Co. (May 25, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67964, unreported [1995 WL 322278].'" (Parallel citations omitted.) Beach House at 580.
The duty of a landlord in such cases is set forth in Carmichael v. Colonial Square Apts. (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 131. In Carmichael, a tenant, who had been assaulted in his own apartment, brought suit against his landlord alleging that the landlord was negligent in failing to provide adequate security in the common areas of the building. The court determined that generally, a landlord has the duty to take reasonable precautions to provide reasonable security in common areas, but does not have a duty to protect t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|