CRAMER v. BALCOR PROPERTY MGMT.
2/7/1994
the relationships of store owner/invitee
laces to which the general public are
invited might indeed anticipate, either from
common experience or known fact, that places
of general public resort are also places
where what men can do, they might. One who
invites all may reasonably expect that all
might not behave, and bears responsibility
for injury that follows the absence of
reasonable precaution against that common
expectation. . . .
Tenants in a huge apartment complex, or
a tenant on the second floor of a house
converted to an apartment, do not live where
the world is invited to come. Absent
agreement, the landlord cannot be expected to
protect them against the wiles of felonry any
more than the society can always protect them
upon the common streets and highways leading
to their residence or indeed in their home
itself.
An apartment building is not a place of
public resort where one who profits from the
very public it invites must bear what losses
that public may create. It is of its nature
private and only for those specifically
invited. The criminal can be expected
anywhere, any time, and has been a risk of
life for a long time.
Id. at 1213, (quoting Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742 (1984)). The district court found the landlord/tenant relationship to be fundamentally different from the relationships for which South Carolina law will impose a duty to protect against criminal activity.
We agree with the U.S. District Court in Cooke in finding a fundamental distinction between the relationships of landlord/tenant and store owner/invitee and innkeeper/guest. Accordingly, we decline to find that landlords owe an affirmative duty to protect tenants from criminal activity merely by reason of the relationship.
The plaintiff concedes that no statutory duty upon the landlord arises from the S.C. Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. We agree. The South Carolina Residential Landlord-Tenant Act does not impose a duty upon landlords to protect tenants from criminal activity of others. While section 27-40-440 imposes a duty on a landlord to keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition, the statute does not impose a duty on a landlord to provide protection to tenants against criminal activity by third parties.
CONCLUSION
We answer the question as presented to us in the negative. Under South Carolina law a landlord does not owe a duty to a tenant to provide security in and around a leased premises to protect the tenant from criminal activity of third parties. Neither common law nor the South Carolina Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, imposes a duty on a landlord to provide protection to tenants against criminal activity of third parties.
Certified questions answered.
CHANDLER, TOAL and MOORE, JJ., concur.
HARWELL, C.J., not participating.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys