 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cole v. Pine Ridge Apartments Company II12/21/2001
enants from the criminal acts of third parties. Id. at 132. Specifically, the Carmichael court stated that:
" * while the landlord has some duty to provide secure common areas in an apartment complex, he is not an insurer of the premises against criminal activity. * Thus, the duty on the landlord is only to take some reasonable precautions to provide reasonable security." Id.; see, also, Sciascia, 3 Ohio App.3d at 166.
In Thomas, 17 Ohio App.3d at 85, the court stated that it found " * no common-law duty imposed by Ohio case law on landlords to afford reasonable protection against entry into the separately rented apartments in a multiple occupancy building, even in the face of foreseeable entries in a `high crime area.' [The court did] not believe defendant had a common-law duty apart from his contractual obligations to install a proper security screen in the first instance, or in the second instance, to replace the screen he had removed."
Further, in Kelly v. Bear Creek Invest. Co. (Feb. 14, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58011, unreported, 1991 WL 19152, at 3, the Eighth Appellate District determined that liability only attaches where a landlord should have reasonably foreseen the criminal activity in question, but failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such activity, and this failure was the proximate cause of a tenant's harm. As previously stated, foreseeability is based upon whether a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated that an injury was likely to result from the performance or nonperformance of the act. Menifee, 15 Ohio St.3d at 77; see, also, Sayles v. SB-92 Ltd. Partnership (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 476, 481; Beach House, 136 Ohio App.3d at 580; Eagle, 104 Ohio App.3d at 797.
In Reitz, 66 Ohio App.3d at 193, which dealt with a business and its customers, the court stated that:
"In addition to the totality of the circumstances presented, a court must be mindful of two other factors when evaluating whether a duty is owed in cases such as this one. The first is that a business is not an absolute insurer of the safety of its customers. The second is that criminal behavior of third persons is not predictable to any particular degree of certainty. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to hold a party liable for acts that are for the most part unforeseeable. *" (Emphasis added.) See, also, Maier, 124 Ohio App.3d at 222.
In applying the foregoing principles to the case at bar, at the time of JoAnne's murder, Pine Ridge and Goldberg had provided an intercom/buzzer system and two security guards to their tenants. There was also testimony that there was a random patrol scheduled for the area at night by local police officers. In addition, appellants have not provided this court with a copy of the lease agreement between Steve and Lillian with Pine Ridge and Goldberg, which would suggest that there was a provision in the lease that required stricter security measures.
Further, the evidence revealed that Aquilla entered the building through the glass sliding door by moving the door latch with his knife. Steve testified that there was no wood stick or anything in place to secure the door from the inside.
Since there is no evidence to support that there was anything in the lease agreement between Pine Ridge and Goldberg with Steve and Lillian regarding security, there was no breach. There was no evidence to suggest that other murders had occurred at the apartment complex. Furthermore, we conclude that to the extent that JoAnne, Steve, and Lillian required a landlord to provide reasonable security to tenants, Pine Ridge and Goldberg had complied with that duty. Therefore, under the totality of the circ
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.
|
|