Walls v. Oxford Management Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire
137 N.H. 653, 633 A.2d 103 (1993)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landlord does not have a general duty to protect tenants from the criminal acts of third parties, but such a duty arises if the landlord creates or is responsible for a known physical defect on the premises that foreseeably enhances the risk of criminal attack, or if the landlord voluntarily undertakes to provide security.

Facts:

Deanna Walls lived with her mother, who leased an apartment at the Bay Ridge Apartment Complex, owned by Nashua-Oxford and managed by Oxford Management.
The apartment complex consisted of 412 apartments in fourteen buildings.
In the two years preceding the incident, numerous crimes against property occurred at the complex, including eleven car thefts, three attempted car thefts, and thirty-one incidents of criminal mischief or theft.
Prior to the assault on Walls, no sexual assaults or similar violent attacks against persons had been reported at the complex.
On December 13, 1988, Deanna Walls was sexually assaulted in her vehicle while it was parked on the premises of the apartment complex.
Gerard Buckley was subsequently arrested and convicted for the sexual assault.

Procedural Posture:

Deanna Walls (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Nashua-Oxford Bay Associates Limited Partnership and Oxford Management Company, Inc. (defendants) in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion for summary judgment.
Prior to ruling on the defendants' motions, the U.S. District Court certified two questions of state law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court for clarification.

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 New Hampshire law impose a general duty on landlords to provide security to protect tenants from the criminal attacks of third persons?

Opinions:

Majority - Horton, J.

No. While landlords owe a general duty of reasonable care to tenants, New Hampshire law does not impose a general duty on landlords to protect tenants from the criminal attacks of third parties. The court rejected the arguments that the landlord-tenant relationship is a 'special relationship' that creates such a duty, or that a duty arises from the 'overriding foreseeability' of crime alone. However, the court established two exceptions where a duty can arise. First, a duty exists when a landlord has created or is responsible for a known defective physical condition on the premises that foreseeably enhances the risk of criminal attack, such as a broken lock or inoperable lighting. Second, a duty to act with reasonable care arises when a landlord voluntarily undertakes, either by contract or gratuitously, to provide security measures. The court also held that the implied warranty of habitability pertains to structural defects and sanitary conditions, not to protection from criminal acts.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the scope of a landlord's liability for third-party criminal acts in New Hampshire, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions. By rejecting a broad, general duty to protect, the court avoids making landlords insurers of their tenants' safety. Instead, it establishes a more predictable, limited framework where liability is tied to the landlord's specific actions or omissions, such as failing to maintain the physical security of the premises or negligently performing security services they have voluntarily assumed. This provides a clear standard for future cases, focusing the inquiry on tangible defects or specific undertakings rather than on the general foreseeability of crime in an area.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Walls v. Oxford Management Co. (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature