Trentacost v. Brussel
1980 N.J. LEXIS 1338, 82 N.J. 214, 412 A.2d 436 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A residential landlord has a legal duty to take reasonable security measures for tenant protection in common areas. This duty arises from both traditional negligence principles of foreseeability and the landlord's implied warranty of habitability, which includes providing a reasonably secure premises.
Facts:
- Florence Trentacost was a 61-year-old widow who had rented an apartment from Dr. Nathan T. Brussel for over ten years in an eight-unit building.
- The apartment building's front entrance door, which was used by tenants and visitors, was not equipped with a lock.
- The building was located in a high-crime neighborhood, where police had investigated 75 to 100 crimes in the three years prior to the incident.
- Trentacost had previously notified Brussel about an attempted break-in at the building and the presence of unauthorized persons in the hallways.
- On December 21, 1973, an unknown assailant entered the building through the unlocked front door and attacked Trentacost in a common hallway.
- The attacker dragged her down a flight of stairs, left her bleeding, then returned to steal her purse.
- Trentacost suffered severe injuries, including multiple fractures and a dislocated shoulder, requiring hospitalization for 15 days.
Procedural Posture:
- Florence Trentacost sued Dr. Nathan T. Brussel in the state trial court for negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Trentacost, awarding her $3,000 in damages.
- The trial court denied Brussel's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The trial court granted Trentacost's motion for a new trial on the issue of damages after Brussel refused to consent to an additur.
- A second jury at the new trial awarded Trentacost $25,000.
- Brussel, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the landlord's liability was properly based on negligence concepts.
- Brussel, as petitioner, sought and was granted certification by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 residential landlord have a legal duty to provide reasonable security measures in the common areas of a rental building to protect a tenant from foreseeable criminal acts committed by third parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Pashman, J.
Yes. A residential landlord has a duty to furnish reasonable safeguards to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal activity. This duty stems from two independent legal theories. First, under traditional negligence principles, a landlord can be liable for creating an "unreasonably enhanced" risk of harm from foreseeable criminal acts. Given the high-crime neighborhood and prior incidents reported by the tenant, the landlord's failure to install a simple lock on the front door was a breach of the duty of reasonable care. Second, the court expands the implied warranty of habitability to include security, holding that an apartment is not habitable without a reasonable measure of security from criminal intrusion. Because the landlord controls the common areas and is in the best position to provide security, this duty is implied in the residential lease, and its breach makes the landlord liable for resulting injuries.
Concurring - Schreiber, J.
Yes. The landlord is liable, but liability should be based solely on traditional tort principles without resorting to the implied warranty of habitability. A state administrative regulation, having the force of law, required building entrance doors to be equipped with heavy-duty lock sets. The landlord's violation of this regulation established a standard of conduct, and his negligent failure to meet that standard is a sufficient basis for imposing liability. This approach avoids the need to expand or create novel legal doctrines.
Dissenting - Clifford, J.
No, as to the implied warranty of habitability theory. While concurring with the result that the landlord is liable, this opinion disagrees with grounding that liability in the implied warranty of habitability. This application predicates what amounts to absolute liability based on the landlord-tenant relationship and loose notions of foreseeability. The existence of a duty should arise from the particular circumstances of the case and be analyzed under traditional negligence principles, which have been well-served in the past and are sufficient here, particularly given the landlord's violation of a statutory duty of care.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands landlord liability by establishing a landlord's affirmative duty to protect tenants from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. By grounding this duty in both tort (negligence) and contract (implied warranty of habitability), the court provides tenants with two distinct and powerful avenues for recovery. The inclusion of security as a core component of the implied warranty of habitability marks a major step in the evolution of landlord-tenant law, reinforcing the modern view of a residential lease as a contract for a bundle of goods and services, including safety, rather than a mere conveyance of property.
