Waters v. New York City Housing Authority
513 N.Y.S.2d 356, 505 N.E.2d 922, 69 N.Y.2d 225 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's duty to maintain secure premises to protect against foreseeable criminal acts does not extend to members of the public who have no connection to the premises and are brought onto the property by a third-party criminal to complete a crime that began elsewhere.
Facts:
- Simone Waters, 16, was walking on a public street when a man accosted her at knifepoint.
- The man forced Waters to walk with him to a nearby building owned by the New York City Housing Authority.
- The front door of the building was unlocked, allowing the assailant to bring Waters inside.
- The assailant took Waters to the building's roof, where he robbed and sodomized her.
- The building's front door locks had been broken or missing for at least two years prior to the incident.
- Tenants had registered multiple complaints with the Housing Authority about the broken locks during that two-year period.
- There had been at least five prior criminal incidents in the building involving outsiders.
Procedural Posture:
- Simone Waters sued the New York City Housing Authority in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (trial court).
- The Housing Authority filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case.
- The trial court granted the Housing Authority's motion and dismissed Waters' complaint.
- Waters, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, with two justices dissenting.
- Waters, as appellant, 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:
Does a landlord's duty to maintain a building's security system extend to a non-tenant victim who is accosted on a public street and subsequently forced into the landlord's unsecured building by a criminal assailant?
Opinions:
Majority - Titone, J.
No. A landlord's duty to maintain building security does not extend to a member of the public who has no connection to the premises and is merely brought there by a third-party criminal. The court reasoned that the victim was not within the 'zone of foreseeable harm' as articulated in Palsgraf v. Long Is. R. R. Co., because the landlord's duty to provide security is intended to protect tenants and their guests, not the public at large. Waters had no relationship with the premises independent of the crime itself. Extending the duty to such a victim would, as a matter of public policy, expose landowners to virtually limitless liability for street crime over which they have no control, a result the court sought to avoid by keeping the legal consequences of wrongs to a 'controllable degree.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the scope of a landlord's duty regarding third-party criminal acts by reinforcing the Palsgraf 'zone of foreseeable harm' doctrine in premises liability. The court establishes that the duty to secure a building is owed only to a specific class of people—tenants and individuals with a legitimate connection to the premises—not as a general duty to prevent property from being used in crimes against the public. This ruling uses public policy to draw a firm line against what the court views as potentially boundless liability for landowners. Future cases involving injuries to non-tenants on a landlord's property will require a plaintiff to demonstrate some pre-existing connection to the premises to establish that a duty of care was owed.
Unlock the full brief for Waters v. New York City Housing Authority