Medcalf v. Washington Heights Condominium Ass'n
747 A.2d 532, 57 Conn. App. 12, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 116 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's negligence is not the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries resulting from a third party's intentional criminal act if the harm was not within the foreseeable scope of risk created by the defendant's negligence. An intervening criminal act is generally a superseding cause that relieves the defendant of liability.
Facts:
- On June 20, 1990, at approximately 9 p.m., Mechelle Medcalf arrived at a condominium building to visit a friend.
- The building was owned by Washington Heights Condominium Association, Inc., and managed by Professional Property Management Company, Inc.
- The lighting in the street-level parking lot was dim.
- Medcalf used the external intercom to call her friend, who answered but could not remotely unlock the lobby door because the electronic buzzer system was broken.
- The friend told Medcalf she would come down to let her in.
- Before the friend could arrive to open the door, a man named Kenneth Strickler attacked and injured Medcalf.
Procedural Posture:
- Mechelle Medcalf sued Washington Heights Condominium Association, Inc., and Professional Property Management Company, Inc., in a Connecticut trial court for negligence.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Medcalf on the count of failure to maintain the intercom system.
- The jury awarded Medcalf $4778.44 in economic damages and $110,000 in noneconomic damages.
- The defendants' motion for a directed verdict was denied by the trial court.
- The defendants appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
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 maintain a building's telephone intercom system constitute the proximate cause of injuries sustained by a visitor who is criminally assaulted while waiting outside for entry?
Opinions:
Majority - Mihalakos, J.
No. The landlord's failure to maintain the intercom system was not the proximate cause of the assault. To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was the legal cause of the injuries, which involves both causation in fact and proximate cause. Proximate cause requires that the harm which occurred was of the same general nature as the foreseeable risk created by the defendant’s negligence. As a general rule, an intentional criminal act by a third person is a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the negligent defendant of liability. Here, the defendants could not have reasonably foreseen that a malfunctioning intercom system would create a substantial incentive for a violent criminal assault. The broken intercom was an incidental and inconsequential factor, not a substantial factor, in causing the plaintiff's injuries, and the assault was not within the foreseeable scope of risk created by the defendants' negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for establishing proximate cause in negligence cases that involve an intervening criminal act. It clarifies that a defendant's negligence must create a foreseeable risk of the specific type of harm that occurred for liability to attach. The ruling limits the scope of landlord liability by distinguishing between failures of general amenities, like an intercom, and failures of primary security measures where criminal activity might be more foreseeable. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold property owners liable for third-party crimes unless the owner's negligent act or omission is directly and foreseeably linked to an increased risk of that specific criminal conduct.
