Section 13.48 Landlord’s Duty to Protect Tenants From Criminal Activities of Third Persons

• Library: Tort Law 2016

E. (§13.48) Landlord’s Duty to Protect Tenants From Criminal Activities of Third Persons

In Aaron v. Havens, 758 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. banc 1988), the Supreme Court held that a tenant stated a cause of action against her landlord for injuries sustained when an intruder sexually assaulted her after entering her apartment from the fire escape through her window, which had a broken latch. A burglar had previously entered the plaintiff’s apartment through a door, which was also accessible from the fire escape. The plaintiff alleged that the landlord was negligent in failing to:

install a lock on her window after her repeated requests that he do so; or secure a lock to the door along a fence surrounding the back yard of the apartment building; or

take precautions so that an intruder could not easily gain access to the fire escape and therefore to the windows in the apartments.

Noting that the owner of an apartment building has a recognized duty to use due care to make common premises safe, as against foreseeable risks, the Aaron Court held:

Here the danger is from unauthorized entry from common premises into private premises. The abstract proposition that there is no duty to protect against criminal misconduct is substantially attenuated in several recent cases. It is not necessary to allege that past crimes involving entry into unauthorized places are of the same general nature as the one which gave rise to the claim. Virginia D., 648 S.W.2d at 887. If a burglar may enter, so may a rapist. To find a duty only the incidence of harm, not necessarily the quantum, need be foreseeable.

Id. at 447–48. The Court found that the allegation that the defendant failed to take available precautions to deny an intruder easy access to the fire escape was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss because it could be supported by "proof that means were available to make the fire escape more difficult of access from the bottom, without unduly interfering with its essential purpose of providing an escape route." Id. at 448. The Court questioned the plaintiff’s other allegations, noting that, with respect to the window lock, there was no allegation of any contractual assumption by the landlord or any undertaking to make repairs and observing, with respect to the fence, that the Court was not prepared "to endorse an abstract proposition that a landlord is obliged to provide gates or fences to keep intruders out of the yard surrounding an apartment building." Id. But the Court...