Court revisits issue of whether landlord is liable for criminal attack upon a tenant
Published 09/20/07

In the recent case of Ward v. Inishmaan , the Supreme Court was asked to revisit the issue of whether a landlord is liable for the criminal attach upon a tenant.

In Ward , the plaintiff was a tenant in a mixed-income housing complex in Portsmouth , NH . The defendant was the property owner. Ward was stabbed by her neighbor, Merry Sommers and filed suit against the defendant for those injuries.

The plaintiff claimed that three years prior to the stabbing, she and Sommers had a number of altercations. Sommers frequently made offensive comments to her and banged on a common wall that separated their two apartments. Sommers also made a number of unsubstantiated complaints about the plaintiff, including allegations that the plaintiff was a drug dealer. Four months prior to the stabbing, Sommers pushed a car door into the plaintiff. The plaintiff reported Sommers behavior to the police, but the police felt they were unable to take action because no criminal activity took place. The plaintiff also made regular complaints about Somers to the defendant.

Following the stabbing, Sommers was arrested and charged with attempted murder. She died prior to trial. The plaintiff then filed suit against the defendant and the property management company claiming they failed to protect her from Sommers' criminal assault. When the plaintiff completed her portion of the trial, the defendant asked the court to dismiss their claim. The defendant argued that the plaintiff “failed to establish any special circumstances required by law to impose liability on a landlord for criminal assault by a third person.” The trial court denied the defendants' request and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed that a number of other courts have held that landlords generally have no duty to protect tenants from a criminal attack. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. One exception occurs where a special temptation and opportunity for criminal conduct is brought about by the landlord. This generally occurs when there is a known physical defect on the premises that enhances the risk of attack. Another exception occurs when a landlord voluntarily assumes a duty to protect its tenants from criminal act. Once the landlord undertakes this obligation, either as a volunteer or by a contract, the landlord must act with reasonable care.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to show that the landlord had voluntarily or contractually assumed an obligation to protect her from criminal attacks. The plaintiff also failed to show that the landlord created or was responsible for the creation of a physical defect which foreseeably enhanced the risk of a criminal attack. Therefore, the trial court should have dismissed the plaintiff's claim at the close of their case and the plaintiff's jury verdict was reversed.

Andrew J. Piela is an associate attorney at Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes civil litigation, family law, land use litigation and probate. You can reach Attorney Piela by e-mail at: apiela@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.