Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a landlord generally has no duty to protect tenants from the criminal acts of third parties absent an agreement or voluntary undertaking to provide security. When a landlord undertakes such a security program, the landlord must perform it with reasonable care and may be liable if negligent performance proximately causes harm. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, also holding that the evidence did not support punitive damages and that evidence of the landlord's wealth could prejudice the compensatory damages determination.

Holdings

1. Absent an agreement or voluntary undertaking to provide security, a landlord has no general duty to protect tenants from criminal intrusion or the criminal acts of third persons.
2. A landlord may assume a duty, voluntarily or by specific agreement, to provide a security program, and is liable for negligent performance of that undertaking when the negligence is a proximate cause of harm within the reasonable expectations of the program.
3. The jury instructions were erroneous because they imposed on the landlord a duty greater than the limited duty arising from a voluntary or contractual security undertaking.
4. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support punitive damages because it did not show the evil motive, reckless indifference, maliciousness, wantonness, willfulness, or oppression required for punitive damages.
5. A jury may not consider a defendant's wealth in fixing compensatory damages, and when punitive damages are improperly submitted and the jury is inadequately instructed, the compensatory-damages award may be set aside for prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a landlord generally owes tenants a duty to protect them from criminal acts of unknown third parties in common areas of an apartment complex.
2. Whether a landlord that voluntarily or contractually provides a security program assumes a duty to perform that undertaking with reasonable care.
3. Whether the jury instructions improperly imposed a general duty on the landlord to provide adequate security.
4. Whether the evidence supported submission of punitive damages to the jury.
5. Whether evidence of the landlord's wealth improperly prejudiced the compensatory-damages award.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded