Opinion ID: 1981544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability for Foreseeable Criminal Conduct

Text: As the Appellate Division correctly recognized, Braitman supplies the focal point of controversy regarding the landlord's duty. In that case the tenants had suffered property loss resulting from theft because of a defective dead bolt lock on the apartment door. See 68 N.J. at 371-372. The trial court found that the remaining slip lock had not provided adequate security and that the landlord had received sufficient notice of the defective dead lock. Id. at 373. Since the robbery was within the scope of the foreseeable risks created by the inadequate security, the court found the landlord liable for negligence. After the Appellate Division affirmed judgment for the tenants, 132 N.J. Super. 51 (App.Div. 1974), this Court examined in detail the various evolving theories concerning the responsibilities of a landlord. We began by noting the traditional rule: [T]he relationship between a landlord and his tenant does not, without more, impose upon the landlord a duty to protect the tenant from the crime of third persons. 68 N.J. at 374 (citations omitted). We went on, however, to cite with approval Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment Corp., 141 U.S. App.D.C. 370, 439 F. 2d 477 (D.C. Cir.1970), as the leading case in the trend away from that tradition. In fashioning a duty to provide tenant security, the court in Kline drew upon three sources. The first, described as the logic of the situation itself, id. at 376, 439 F. 2d at 483, was the recognition that the landlord was in a better economic position than the tenant to take precautionary measures. The court adopted this as a predicate for the landlord's tort liability. Id. at 377, 439 F. 2d at 484. Relying on existing law in the District of Columbia, the court noted as a second source an implied contractual undertaking to maintain those protective measures in effect at the beginning of the lease term. Id. at 378, 439 F. 2d at 485. A third source was the law governing an innkeeper's duties towards his guests. The court thought this doctrine provided a more appropriate analogy than that of a medieval agrarian lease  the formal predecessor of the modern urban residential lease  for determining the landlord's obligations. See id. at 375, 378, 439 F. 2d at 482, 485; see also Javins v. First Nat'l Realty Corp., 138 U.S.App.D.C. 369, 375-377, 428 F. 2d 1071, 1077-1079 (D.C. Cir.1970), cert. den., 400 U.S. 925, 91 S.Ct. 186, 27 L.Ed. 2d 185 (1970). These three bases provided a foundation for enlarging the landlord's duty to maintain common areas of rental premises so as to safeguard tenants from foreseeable criminal conduct of third parties. Kline, 141 U.S. App.D.C. at 380, 439 F. 2d at 487. Although a majority of the Court in Braitman did not embrace the reasoning of Kline, see Braitman, 68 N.J. at 387-388 (separate views of Hughes, C.J., Sullivan and Pashman, JJ.), we did acknowledge a developing judicial reluctance to allow landlords to insulate themselves from liability to their tenants for the criminal conduct of third parties, id. at 378. [3] We then turned to the development of negligence liability for foreseeable criminal conduct in New Jersey. We held that upon a logical extension of the principles of our own case law, a landlord could be held liable for creating an unreasonably enhanced risk of loss resulting from foreseeable criminal conduct. Id. at 382-383. See Zinck v. Whelan, 120 N.J. Super. 432, 445 (App. Div. 1972). As in Braitman, here the landlord was confronted with the existence of a high level of crime in the neighborhood, see ante at 218-219. Yet he failed to install a lock on the front door leading in to the building's lobby. By failing to do anything to arrest or even reduce the risk of criminal harm to his tenants, the landlord effectively and unreasonably enhanced that risk. See Braitman, 68 N.J. at 381-382. We reiterate that our holding in Braitman lies well within traditional principles of negligence law. Negligence is tested by whether the reasonably prudent person at the time and place should recognize and foresee an unreasonable risk or likelihood of harm or danger to others. Rappaport v. Nichols, 31 N.J. 188, 201 (1959). If the reasonably prudent person would foresee danger resulting from another's voluntary, criminal acts, the fact that another's actions are beyond defendant's control does not preclude liability. See Hill v. Yaskin, 75 N.J. 139, 143-145 (1977); Goldberg v. Newark Housing Auth., 38 N.J. 578, 588 (1962); Brower v. New York C. & H.R.R.R. Co., 91 N.J.L. 190, 193 (E & A 1918); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Reading Co., Inc., 148 N.J. Super. 387, 395-398 (App.Div. 1977); Zinck v. Whelan, 120 N.J. Super. at 445; Genovay v. Fox, 50 N.J. Super. 538, 550-551 (App.Div. 1958), rev'd on other grounds, 29 N.J. 436 (1959). Cf. Harpell v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 20 N.J. 309, 316-317 (1956); Menth v. Breeze Corporation, Inc., 4 N.J. 428, 441-442 (1950). Foreseeability of harm, not the fact of another's intervention, is the crucial factor in determining whether a duty exists to take measures to guard against [criminal activity]. Goldberg, 38 N.J. at 583. Application of these principles in Braitman led to the imposition of liability for a landlord's failure to provide adequate security against foreseeable criminal conduct. See Braitman, 68 N.J. at 378-381; see also Kline, 141 U.S.App.D.C. at 374-376, 439 F. 2d at 481-483; Johnston v. Harris, 387 Mich. 569, 574-575, 198 N.W. 2d 409, 410-411 (Sup.Ct. 1972). They also support affirmance of plaintiff's judgment in the present case. There was ample evidence that criminal activity affecting the Monroe Street building was reasonably foreseeable. More than one witness testified to the high incidence of crime in the neighborhood. Plaintiff's own, unchallenged testimony related an attempted theft within the building. Against this background, the jury could readily view the absence of a lock on the front entrance  an area outside an individual tenant's control  as exemplifying a callous disregard for the residents' safety in violation of ordinary standards of care. Since there was sufficient evidence for concluding that the mugging was a foreseeable result of the landlord's negligence, the jury's finding of liability was warranted.