Dangerous Rentals: Landlord's Duty Of Reasonable Protection
Memphis Trial lawyers, as well as, Tennessee trial lawyers face both the civil law and criminal law results of violent crime. Not only do the victims of such events seek legal counsel, but if the property where the violent crime happens is a leased apartment, for example, then the owner of this premises may have severe legal consequences too. Usually, liability for injuries of this type boils down to a question of "foreseeability".
For example, on March 7, 2002, at approximately 11:45 a.m., L.C. Miller, a tenant in Jefferson Square,one of several public housing projects owned by the Memphis Housing Authority (“MHA”), argued with the housing project’s security guard, fired shots in the direction of his office, and struck and killed Charles Cornelius Brown, Sr., another tenant at the facility who happened to be in the office area at that time. Brown was not involved in the argument. Miller was subsequently shot by the security guard, who was an employee of Scruggs Security and Patrol, LLC (“Scruggs”), a private company which provided security at the facility at the time of the shooting. A wrongful death lawsuit followed against the MHA and the guard company.
The trial court held that neither the internal policies of MHA nor the contents of the criminal background check of Miller created any duty to the Plaintiffs under these circumstances. Moreover,after observing that a policy excluding those with prior records(from renting) would result in “a massive underclass of ex-convicts homeless due to an inability to find housing,” the trial court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that there was an affirmative duty on the part of MHA to conduct a criminal background check on prospective residents.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in favor of MHA, holding that “an isolated violent outburst by . . . Miller was [in]sufficient to notify MHA that criminal acts against its tenants were reasonably foreseeable, either generally or at some particular time” and, in consequence, insufficient to give rise to a duty (on the part of MHA) in these circumstances.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal. They noted, that the landlord and tenant qualify as having a special relationship. Further, violence in a housing project is, generally speaking, foreseeable. Poverty is common in such areas. In consequence, precautions are warranted. The Court found that the record establishes that MHA, aware of this potential danger, took some measures to guard against violence. In 1996, criminal background checks extending over a period of three years, a credit history report, and a home visit were warranted for a variety of reasons, including safety. The question, of course, is whether MHA, with some general knowledge of criminal activity within its housing complexes and a particular knowledge of Miller’s altercation with another tenant four years earlier, could have reasonably foreseen the probability of a violent act. We think so.Giggers v. MHA case opinion.
In order to guard against becoming a victim, the following video will provide some important information:
