Opinion ID: 1163327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cause of action for Sun Harbor's breach of duty to protect its tenants from the conduct of a third person.

Text: A land owner or occupier owes a duty to the people on the land to act reasonably under the circumstances. Moody v. Manny's Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 333, 871 P.2d 935, 943 (1994). This court has determined that consideration of the status of the injured person as trespasser, licensee, or invitee is no longer determinative and concluded that determinations of liability should primarily depend upon whether the owner or occupier of land acted reasonably under the circumstances. Id. More specifically, when the issue is protecting a guest from the injury caused by a third person, this court has stated that [t]here is a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons only where the occupant of realty has reasonable cause to anticipate such act and the probability of injury resulting therefrom. Thomas v. Bokelman, 86 Nev. 10, 13, 462 P.2d 1020, 1022 (1970). On the issue of foreseeability, this court has stated: Since the possessor is not an insurer of the visitor's safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur.... Early v. N.L.V. Casino Corp., 100 Nev. 200, 203, 678 P.2d 683, 684 (1984) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 cmt. f (1965)). We conclude that genuine issues of material fact also existed as to whether Sun Harbor could reasonably foresee that Thamar would commit a violent act and whether Sun Harbor acted reasonably under the circumstances. [6] Vernon presented evidence that on two occasions he informed Olsen of his marital situation, that he believed Thamar to be dangerous, and that Thamar had threatened to kill him. However, one of these conversations occurred four days prior to Londa's death, and the other occurred on the day of Londa's death. We conclude that these facts create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Sun Harbor acted reasonably under the circumstances to protect its tenants from Thamar's violent acts. Therefore, it was improper for the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of Sun Harbor on this cause of action.