Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.
429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 50 N.Y.2d 507, 407 N.E.2d 451 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has a legal duty to take reasonable protective measures for those on their property against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties, and a history of criminal activity on the premises can be sufficient to make the risk of such acts foreseeable.
Facts:
- William Nallan, an officer in a labor union, was investigating corruption within the organization and had received threats against his life.
- On September 30, 1969, Nallan went to the Fisk Building, owned and operated by defendants, to attend a union meeting.
- The building normally had an attendant at a lobby desk after business hours to sign in visitors.
- When Nallan arrived, the attendant was away from his post performing janitorial duties elsewhere in the building.
- As Nallan leaned over the desk to sign the guest register, an unknown assailant shot him in the back.
- It is assumed the assailant's motive was related to Nallan's union activities.
- In the 21 months preceding the shooting, 107 crimes were reported in the Fisk Building, including 10 crimes against persons.
Procedural Posture:
- William Nallan and his wife sued the building's owner and manager in a New York trial court for negligence.
- At trial, the jury answered a series of special interrogatories, finding that defendants' negligence was a proximate cause of the injury but also that the injury was not foreseeable.
- The jury also found plaintiff William Nallan to be contributorily negligent.
- Based on the finding of contributory negligence, the trial court entered judgment for the defendants.
- The Nallans (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the finding of contributory negligence but affirmed the judgment for the defendants, holding that plaintiffs had failed to establish foreseeability and proximate cause as a matter of law.
- The Nallans (plaintiffs-appellants) then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest 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:
Is evidence of prior criminal activity on a landlord's premises sufficient to establish a foreseeable risk of harm to visitors, thereby creating a duty for the landlord to take reasonable protective measures against the criminal acts of third parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Gabrielli, J.
Yes. A landowner's duty to maintain reasonably safe premises extends to taking precautions against the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. The extensive history of prior criminal activity in the building was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that a criminal act in the lobby was a significant, foreseeable possibility. This foreseeability creates a duty on the part of the landowner to take reasonable steps to minimize the danger. The court reasoned that a rational jury could conclude that the defendants breached this duty by failing to ensure an attendant was always present in the lobby. Furthermore, expert testimony suggested that the mere presence of an attendant could deter criminal acts, allowing a jury to infer that the attendant's absence was a proximate cause of Nallan's injury. Therefore, the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of negligence sufficient to be decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that a landowner's duty of care can extend to protecting visitors from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. It establishes that a substantial history of criminal conduct on the premises is a key factor in determining foreseeability, even if the prior crimes were not of the same nature or did not occur in the same location as the injury-causing event. The decision lowers the barrier for plaintiffs in premises liability cases involving third-party crime by clarifying that foreseeability relates to the general risk of harm, not the specific crime that occurred. This precedent has guided subsequent cases in determining when property owners must implement security measures to protect tenants and visitors.
Unlock the full brief for Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.