Johnston v. Harris
1972 Mich. LEXIS 180, 198 N.W.2d 409, 387 Mich. 569 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord may be liable for injuries caused by the criminal acts of a third party if the landlord's negligent failure to provide adequate security measures in a high-crime area created conditions that enhanced the likelihood of such criminal assaults, making the harm foreseeable.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was an elderly tenant residing in a four-unit apartment building owned by defendants' decedent in the Detroit inner city.
- The area where the apartment building was located was known to be a high-crime district.
- The building's porch and vestibule were poorly lighted, and its outer vestibule door was continuously unlocked.
- On October 7, 1965, at approximately 7:30 p.m., plaintiff returned home and approached the front door.
- As plaintiff reached for the doorknob, an unknown youth, who had been lurking in the poorly lighted and unlocked vestibule, suddenly opened the door.
- The unknown youth then assaulted, struck, and robbed the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced an action in Wayne Circuit Court against defendants’ decedent, alleging the assault and injuries were proximately caused by the decedent’s failure to provide adequate lighting and door locks.
- At the conclusion of plaintiff’s proofs, the trial court (sitting without a jury) granted defendants’ "motion for a directed verdict of no cause of action."
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, concluding that while plaintiff established a prima facie case for duty and breach, there was no adequate proof of proximate cause.
- Plaintiff was granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's negligent failure to provide adequate porch and vestibule lighting and a lock on the front door of an apartment building constitute a proximate cause of a tenant's mugging by a criminal lurking in the poorly lit and unlocked vestibule, when the building is located in a high-crime area and such harm is foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - T. M. Kavanagh, C. J.
Yes, a landlord's negligent failure to provide adequate lighting and locks can be a proximate cause of a tenant's injuries from a criminal assault if such conditions make the crime foreseeable in a high-crime area. The Court found that the Court of Appeals too narrowly viewed the plaintiff's case. The core of the plaintiff's argument was that the landlord's negligence created a condition conducive to criminal assaults in a high-crime district, enhancing the likelihood of harm. This theory aligns with Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 302B (negligence for foreseeable criminal conduct), 448 (when a criminal act is not a superseding cause), and 449 (when a criminal act is the hazard making the actor negligent). The Court specifically held that § 442B, which views intervening acts as superseding causes, was inapplicable because the landlord's negligence itself created the risk of the criminal act. Given that plaintiff presented a prima facie case on all elements, which was unrebutted, the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict and failing to make specific findings of fact and law. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Dissenting - T. E. Brennan, J.
No, the majority's decision extends tort law too far by placing the burden of public safety, which is inherently the government's responsibility, onto private property owners. The dissenting justice argued that requiring landlords to provide extensive security measures in high-crime areas adds an unfair financial burden on property owners, who are already taxed to support public safety services. He viewed the decision as a regressive mistake that would further incentivize private security solutions and vigilante actions, rather than addressing the root causes of crime through governmental action, especially given that members of the Court do not live in such areas and would not directly bear the increased costs.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded landlord liability in Michigan, establishing that landlords can be held responsible for foreseeable criminal acts occurring on their property if their negligence creates conditions conducive to such crimes. It highlights the importance of foreseeability in determining proximate cause, particularly when an intervening criminal act is the very hazard the defendant's negligence made more likely. The ruling likely spurred landlords, especially in high-crime areas, to improve security measures, such as lighting and locks, to mitigate potential liability.
