Ruiz v. VICTORY PROPERTIES, LLC
43 A.3d 186, 135 Conn. App. 119, 2012 WL 1394070 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord has a duty of care to protect tenants from foreseeable harm caused by dangerous conditions in common areas, and this duty exists even if the specific manner in which an injury occurs is unusual or bizarre, as long as the general nature of the harm was foreseeable.
Facts:
- Victory Properties, LLC was the owner and landlord of a six-family apartment building.
- Adriana Ruiz, a seven-year-old girl, and Luis Cruz, a ten-year-old boy, were both residents of the building.
- The backyard of the building, a common area where children frequently played, contained debris such as buckets, trash, rocks, and broken concrete pieces.
- At least one tenant had previously complained to Victory Properties about the dangerous conditions in the backyard.
- On May 14, 2008, Luis Cruz took a large rock or piece of concrete from the backyard up to his family's third-floor apartment.
- Luis then threw the object from his third-floor window or balcony to the ground below.
- Although Luis yelled a warning to his cousin Adriana, who was below, the object struck her in the head, causing a severe injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Adriana Ruiz and Olga Rivera filed a negligence complaint against Victory Properties, LLC in a Connecticut trial court.
- The plaintiffs' motion for a prejudgment remedy was granted in part by the trial court following an evidentiary hearing.
- The defendant, Victory Properties, LLC, then moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Connecticut Appellate 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 owe a duty of care to a tenant who was injured by the actions of another child using a piece of dangerous debris that the landlord negligently left in a common play area, even when the exact manner of the injury was unusual?
Opinions:
Majority - Borden, J.
Yes. A landlord owes a duty of care because the general nature of the harm suffered was foreseeable, even if the specific manner in which it occurred was unusual. The test for duty requires analyzing both foreseeability and public policy. The proper foreseeability inquiry focuses on whether harm of the general nature was likely to result, not the exact chain of events. Here, it was foreseeable that a child could be injured by another child throwing a piece of the dangerous debris left in a common play area. Defining the harm more specifically—as being hit by a rock dropped from a third-floor balcony—improperly conflates the general nature of the harm with the specific manner of its occurrence. Public policy also supports imposing a duty, as tenants expect safe common areas and society benefits from encouraging landlords to maintain their properties. Finally, the child's action was not a superseding cause that would cut off the landlord's liability, as it was not an intentional tort; rather, the issue should be analyzed under principles of proximate cause and comparative negligence.
Dissenting - Alvord, J.
No. The landlord did not owe a duty of care because the harm was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the landlord's failure to remove the debris. The majority's definition of 'general harm' is overly broad and effectively creates a strict liability standard for landlords. The proper inquiry is whether a landlord could reasonably foresee the specific, attenuated chain of events: a ten-year-old child carrying an eighteen-pound cinder block up three flights of stairs and dropping it on another child's head. This sequence of events is too remote and bizarre to be considered foreseeable. While it might be foreseeable for a child to trip on debris, the catastrophic result here was not, and holding the landlord liable extends legal responsibility too far.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'foreseeability' prong of the duty analysis in premises liability cases, establishing that the focus must be on the general nature of the harm, not the specific, unusual manner in which it occurs. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to win on summary judgment by arguing that a peculiar sequence of events was unforeseeable. The ruling effectively shifts the foreseeability question from a legal determination for the judge to a factual one for the jury in cases with unusual facts but a generally foreseeable risk. It also reinforces the modern trend of limiting the doctrine of superseding cause in favor of apportionment of fault among all negligent parties.
