Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.
439 F.2d 477 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts committed by third parties in the common areas of the property that are under the landlord's exclusive control.
Facts:
- In October 1959, Sarah B. Kline leased an apartment in a 585-unit building owned by 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.
- At the time she moved in, the building had significant security, including a 24-hour doorman, a manned lobby desk, and attended garage entrances.
- By mid-1966, the landlord had significantly reduced these security measures, leaving the main entrance without a doorman, the lobby desk frequently unattended, and other entrances unguarded or unlocked.
- Concurrent with the reduction in security, a rising number of assaults, robberies, and larcenies were perpetrated against tenants in the building's common hallways.
- The landlord had notice of this increasing crime, as police reports were filed and Kline herself had previously urged the landlord's agent to improve security.
- Two months before Kline's incident, another female tenant, Leona Sullivan, was similarly attacked in a common hallway of the building.
- On November 17, 1966, an intruder criminally assaulted and robbed Sarah B. Kline in the common hallway just outside her apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- Sarah B. Kline filed a lawsuit against 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp. in the District Court.
- The case was tried before a judge without a jury.
- The District Court entered judgment for the landlord, holding as a matter of law that a landlord has no duty to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts committed by third parties.
- Kline, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the apartment corporation was the appellee.
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 have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts committed by third parties in the common areas of an apartment building?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkey, Circuit Judge
Yes. A landlord has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties in those portions of the premises, such as common hallways, that are within the landlord's exclusive control. The court reasoned that the traditional rule absolving individuals from the duty to protect others from criminal attack is not applicable to the modern landlord-tenant relationship in large, urban apartment buildings. The landlord is the only party with the power to secure common areas, and where there is a known and predictable risk of crime, a duty to minimize that risk arises. Drawing on the recent case of Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, the court treated the lease as a contract for a package of services, which includes security, and found an implied obligation on the landlord to continue providing the level of protection that existed at the start of the tenancy. The court also analogized the relationship to that of an innkeeper and guest, where a duty to protect from foreseeable harm is well established.
Dissenting - MacKinnon, Circuit Judge
No. The majority imposes an unreasonable standard of care on the landlord and incorrectly finds liability as a matter of law based on an insufficient factual record. The dissent argued that the majority overstated the foreseeability of the crime, noting there was only one prior assault and robbery, not a wave of them, which is insufficient to make such an attack predictable. The dissent also contended that the plaintiff failed to prove the landlord had notice of the prior assault, that the lack of security was the proximate cause of the attack, or what the prevailing security standard was for similar buildings. Furthermore, imposing a duty to provide what amounts to police protection is an impractical and excessive burden on landlords of mixed-use buildings, which will ultimately harm tenants through higher rents and exculpatory lease clauses.
Analysis:
This is a landmark case that established a new tort duty for landlords to protect tenants from foreseeable third-party crime, a significant departure from the common law. By treating the modern urban lease as a contract for services (including security) rather than a simple conveyance of land, the court adapted legal principles to the realities of apartment living. This decision created a new basis for tenant lawsuits against landlords for inadequate security and influenced landlord-tenant law across the United States. It shifted a portion of the responsibility for crime prevention from the public sector to private property owners in specific, foreseeable circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.