Summary
The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for landlords in a wrongful-death negligence action arising from a tenant's murder by assailants who used an apartment key. The court held that landlords generally have no duty to protect tenants from third-party criminal acts, but a duty may arise when their acts or omissions create a foreseeable high risk of harm, particularly where they control lock changes. The court remanded for determination of whether the tenant requested a lock change and whether the failure to act made the criminal harm reasonably foreseeable.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ross requested that the lock to her apartment be changed.
- Whether landlords who control tenant lock changes may owe a duty of reasonable care when their affirmative acts or omissions create a foreseeable high risk of criminal harm.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the ground that no landlord-tenant special relationship existed.
Holdings
- The conflicting testimony and affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ross requested that defendants change her apartment lock.
- Landlords generally owe no duty to protect tenants from all criminal activity committed by third parties.
- Although no special relationship existed under the ordinary landlord-tenant test, a duty to exercise reasonable care may arise when a landlord's affirmative act or omission creates a foreseeable high risk of criminal harm to a tenant.
- Summary judgment was improper because the record presented unresolved factual questions concerning Ross's request for a lock change and, if she made the request, whether defendants could reasonably have foreseen that failing to act placed her at probable high risk of harm from an imminent criminal act.
Key quotations
“We reverse because there are genuine issues of material fact, and although a landlord owes no general duty to tenants to protect them from crime, such a duty arises when a landlord's affirmative acts or omissions create a foreseeably high risk to the tenant.” (¶1)
“Thus, landlords who by their own affirmative acts or omissions create a high risk of harm from crime owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect tenants from that increased risk.” (¶16)
“If it was not reasonably foreseeable, then no duty existed.” (¶21)
Factual background
Mary K. Ross lived in a low-income apartment complex managed by defendants. After a key to her apartment was lost, Ross reported the missing key to apartment employees; the parties disputed whether she also requested that the lock be changed. The apartment policies prohibited tenants from changing their own locks and required a fee for a lock change. Ross was later murdered by hired killers who entered her apartment using a key.
Procedural history
The estate sued the landlords and property manager, alleging negligent maintenance of the apartment complex and failure to change the apartment lock after Ross reported a missing key. The circuit court granted defendants summary judgment on the ground that landlords owed no duty to protect tenants from third-party criminal acts because no special relationship existed. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The fact finder must determine whether Ross requested that her lock be changed. If she did not, defendants had no affirmative duty to protect her on these facts. If she did request a lock change, the circuit court must determine whether the circumstances made it reasonably foreseeable that defendants' failure to act placed her at a probable high risk of harm from an imminent criminal act. If a duty existed, the fact finder must determine negligence and proximate cause.