|
|
|
I live in an apartment complex in California. Around a year ago a new
tenant moved in. He was pretty loud and inconsiderate and one of
neighbors
complained about him. After numerous complaints, the complex manager
spoke
with him. After that, started threatening all of the neighbors for
saying
"false things" about him. In the last year, he has threatened to
"get" at
least one of my neighbors, and rumor has it, threatened to "kill" one
neighbor
because they had gotten his car dirty. I have heard that each of
these
incidents were reported to the complex manager and they have done
nothing.
Apparently he even threatened the complex manager at one point.
Tonight when I was returning home, I ran into him in the stairwell. I
said
nothing and went about my business. He started saying insulting
things. I
asked what his problem was. He said he was going to "get" me for
saying
"false things" about him. I responded by saying that I hadn't even
seen him
for months so I don't know what he was talking about, and he said he
was going
to "get me" for what I had done and he "never forgot". He got in my
face and poked his finger into my nose in an extremely threatening
manner. Obviously he
blames me for a complaint that I never even filed.
This fellow strikes me as seriously deranged and extremely dangerous.
My
neighbors are terrified of him. I am concerned over what I should do
next.
If what I have heard is accurate,
complaints to the complex manager yield no results, and I have to live
next to this guy. What are my legal options here? Also, do landlords
have
any legal or fiducial responsibility to deal with tenants like this
guy?
|
| |
| |
Dirk,
You live next to a loud and obnoxious neighbor. You can move but you
have not. The neighbor has allegedly threatened to " get " various people
but has not followed through. You feel threatened by this neighbor.
It doesn't sound like your neighbor is anything more than an obnoxious
pain in the ass. The legal system won't help you. Move.
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
In article <l5z4d.12034$n16.2394@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
David Martel <marte005@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dirk,
You live next to a loud and obnoxious neighbor. You can move but you
have not. The neighbor has allegedly threatened to " get " various people
but has not followed through. You feel threatened by this neighbor.
It doesn't sound like your neighbor is anything more than an obnoxious
pain in the ass.
Or possibly a potentially violent paranoid schizophrenic.
The legal system won't help you. Move.
The legal system won't help you if someone threatens to kill you?
Doesn't say much for the legal system.
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
Dirk Bussiere wrote:
....
Tonight when I was returning home, I ran into him in the stairwell. I
said
nothing and went about my business. He started saying insulting
things. I
asked what his problem was. He said he was going to "get" me for
saying
"false things" about him. I responded by saying that I hadn't even
seen him
for months so I don't know what he was talking about, and he said he
was going
to "get me" for what I had done and he "never forgot". He got in my
face and poked his finger into my nose in an extremely threatening
manner. Obviously he
blames me for a complaint that I never even filed.
A threat to "get" you may not be actionable.
However, poking "his finger into" your nose sounds like assault and
battery. Ask the police to investigate. If the threats mentioned
in the paragraph I snipped really DID amount to death threats,
I see no reason why the police wouldn't investigate.
You might also seek a protective order in court. If the order
is granted, the first notice he would get would be service
of the order.
|
| |
| |
It doesn't sound like your neighbor is anything more than an obnoxious
pain in the ass.
Or possibly a potentially violent paranoid schizophrenic.
The legal system won't help you if someone threatens to kill you?
Doesn't say much for the legal system.
This brings back memories of the old westerns where bad guys ride into town
and create havoc. The residents are afraid and believe nothing can be done,
so they let the bad guys have their way. Some good people advise other good
people to move. The sheriff and the judge are intimidated and can't help.
Then sometimes a few courageous people get together and take the law into
their own hands.
I find it hard to accept leaving a bad guy loose in an apartment building
and just saying nothing can be done. Possibly the best thing to do is to
call a meeting of all the tenants who are affected by this problem and
explore more options as to what can be done through collective action.
|
| |
| |
I live in an apartment complex in California. Around a year ago a new
tenant moved in. He was pretty loud and inconsiderate and one of
neighbors
complained about him. After numerous complaints, the complex manager
spoke
with him. After that, started threatening all of the neighbors for
saying
"false things" about him. In the last year, he has threatened to
"get" at
least one of my neighbors, and rumor has it, threatened to "kill" one
neighbor
because they had gotten his car dirty. I have heard that each of
these
incidents were reported to the complex manager and they have done
nothing.
Apparently he even threatened the complex manager at one point.
Tonight when I was returning home, I ran into him in the stairwell. I
said
nothing and went about my business. He started saying insulting
things. I
asked what his problem was. He said he was going to "get" me for
saying
"false things" about him. I responded by saying that I hadn't even
seen him
for months so I don't know what he was talking about, and he said he
was going
to "get me" for what I had done and he "never forgot". He got in my
face and poked his finger into my nose in an extremely threatening
manner. Obviously he
blames me for a complaint that I never even filed.
This fellow strikes me as seriously deranged and extremely dangerous.
My
neighbors are terrified of him. I am concerned over what I should do
next.
If what I have heard is accurate,
complaints to the complex manager yield no results, and I have to live
next to this guy. What are my legal options here? Also, do landlords
have
any legal or fiducial responsibility to deal with tenants like this
guy?
The landlord has already spoken to him and you saw the result. What did you
expect him to do? Seek to have the courts invalidate his lease and remove
him on the grounds he's a bully? I doubt there's any such clause in his
lease. The landlord is a businessman not a protection agency. Report your
problems to law enforcement and ask them to investigate. If that doesn't end
with a positive outcome, tell your landlord you are breaking your lease on
the grounds you've been denied quiet enjoyment. If he loses enough tenants
and it becomes an economic problem, he'll figure out how to get the guy
gone. There's no deep pocket party here.
|
| |
| |
bussierd@hotmail.com (Dirk Bussiere) wrote in message news:<707f5718.0409222339.20d4a1fc@posting.google.com>...
I live in an apartment complex in California. Around a year ago a new
tenant moved in. He was pretty loud and inconsiderate and one of
neighbors
complained about him. After numerous complaints, the complex manager
spoke
with him. After that, started threatening all of the neighbors for
saying
"false things" about him. In the last year, he has threatened to
"get" at
least one of my neighbors, and rumor has it, threatened to "kill" one
neighbor
because they had gotten his car dirty. I have heard that each of
these
incidents were reported to the complex manager and they have done
nothing.
Apparently he even threatened the complex manager at one point.
Tonight when I was returning home, I ran into him in the stairwell. I
said
nothing and went about my business. He started saying insulting
things. I
asked what his problem was. He said he was going to "get" me for
saying
"false things" about him. I responded by saying that I hadn't even
seen him
for months so I don't know what he was talking about, and he said he
was going
to "get me" for what I had done and he "never forgot". He got in my
face and poked his finger into my nose in an extremely threatening
manner. Obviously he
blames me for a complaint that I never even filed.
This fellow strikes me as seriously deranged and extremely dangerous.
My
neighbors are terrified of him. I am concerned over what I should do
next.
If what I have heard is accurate,
complaints to the complex manager yield no results, and I have to live
next to this guy. What are my legal options here? Also, do landlords
have
any legal or fiducial responsibility to deal with tenants like this
guy?
This reminds me of a situation I found myself in. I lived in a
four-plex with a gated yard. One evening one of the new neighbors
knocked and asked if my cable was working. I said it was; he then
asked if he could use my phone. Once I'd opened the door fully it was
apparent I'd made a mistake. He was high as a kite. He milled around
glassy-eyed while I stood outside the doorway trying to figure out how
to get him out of there without further endangering myself.
Eventually I got him out, then immediately called the landlord. The
landlord did exactly nothing. After a few days the same guy showed
up, knocking on the door, then peeking through windows when I wouldn't
open up. I called the landlord; nothing.
Then I called my big brother; he came over and we went together to the
guy's apartment and knocked. Almost immediately, his television
turned off. He wouldn't come to the door. We went back to my place
and sat and talked awhile. As my brother was departing, we noticed a
note on my door. In it, my neighbor admitted to having "a problem"
and apologized for pestering me. He never came to my door again.
I guess the moral to the story is to take care of the matter yourself.
Landlords won't do #@($.
Mez
|
| |
| |
bussierd@hotmail.com (Dirk Bussiere) wrote in message
news:<707f5718.0409222339.20d4a1fc@posting.google.com>...
I live in an apartment complex in California. Around a year ago a new
tenant moved in. He was pretty loud and inconsiderate and one of
neighbors
complained about him. After numerous complaints, the complex manager
spoke
with him. After that, started threatening all of the neighbors for
saying
"false things" about him. In the last year, he has threatened to
"get" at
least one of my neighbors, and rumor has it, threatened to "kill" one
neighbor
because they had gotten his car dirty. I have heard that each of
these
incidents were reported to the complex manager and they have done
nothing.
Apparently he even threatened the complex manager at one point.
Tonight when I was returning home, I ran into him in the stairwell. I
said
nothing and went about my business. He started saying insulting
things. I
asked what his problem was. He said he was going to "get" me for
saying
"false things" about him. I responded by saying that I hadn't even
seen him
for months so I don't know what he was talking about, and he said he
was going
to "get me" for what I had done and he "never forgot". He got in my
face and poked his finger into my nose in an extremely threatening
manner. Obviously he
blames me for a complaint that I never even filed.
This fellow strikes me as seriously deranged and extremely dangerous.
My
neighbors are terrified of him. I am concerned over what I should do
next.
If what I have heard is accurate,
complaints to the complex manager yield no results, and I have to live
next to this guy. What are my legal options here? Also, do landlords
have
any legal or fiducial responsibility to deal with tenants like this
guy?
This reminds me of a situation I found myself in. I lived in a
four-plex with a gated yard. One evening one of the new neighbors
knocked and asked if my cable was working. I said it was; he then
asked if he could use my phone. Once I'd opened the door fully it was
apparent I'd made a mistake. He was high as a kite. He milled around
glassy-eyed while I stood outside the doorway trying to figure out how
to get him out of there without further endangering myself.
Eventually I got him out, then immediately called the landlord. The
landlord did exactly nothing. After a few days the same guy showed
up, knocking on the door, then peeking through windows when I wouldn't
open up. I called the landlord; nothing.
Then I called my big brother; he came over and we went together to the
guy's apartment and knocked. Almost immediately, his television
turned off. He wouldn't come to the door. We went back to my place
and sat and talked awhile. As my brother was departing, we noticed a
note on my door. In it, my neighbor admitted to having "a problem"
and apologized for pestering me. He never came to my door again.
I guess the moral to the story is to take care of the matter yourself.
Landlords won't do #@($.
Mez
Well gee, could that be because landlords rent property and aren't in the
personal protection business? If you have civil or criminal problems, you
talk to the police or an attorney. If you want a bodyguard to defend your
honor, hire one. The landlord won't be comming to your rescue here.
|
| |
| |
you need to put all of these things down in A WRITTEN statement to the
landlord. If soemthing happens and you can show that you warned the
landlord about it you can sue the landlord for big bucks.
YES landlords have to enforces the rules of the complex or report problems
to the police if they go that far. You should also file police reports.
I live in an apartment complex in California. Around a year ago a new
tenant moved in. He was pretty loud and inconsiderate and one of
neighbors
complained about him. After numerous complaints, the complex manager
spoke
with him. After that, started threatening all of the neighbors for
saying
"false things" about him. In the last year, he has threatened to
"get" at
least one of my neighbors, and rumor has it, threatened to "kill" one
neighbor
because they had gotten his car dirty. I have heard that each of
these
incidents were reported to the complex manager and they have done
nothing.
Apparently he even threatened the complex manager at one point.
Tonight when I was returning home, I ran into him in the stairwell. I
said
nothing and went about my business. He started saying insulting
things. I
asked what his problem was. He said he was going to "get" me for
saying
"false things" about him. I responded by saying that I hadn't even
seen him
for months so I don't know what he was talking about, and he said he
was going
to "get me" for what I had done and he "never forgot". He got in my
face and poked his finger into my nose in an extremely threatening
manner. Obviously he
blames me for a complaint that I never even filed.
This fellow strikes me as seriously deranged and extremely dangerous.
My
neighbors are terrified of him. I am concerned over what I should do
next.
If what I have heard is accurate,
complaints to the complex manager yield no results, and I have to live
next to this guy. What are my legal options here? Also, do landlords
have
any legal or fiducial responsibility to deal with tenants like this
guy?
|
| |
| |
I see a lot of people here say you have nothing against this landlord.
Don't listen to them.. landlords have a duty to keep the place as secure as
they can, short of posting guards at every corner. If you can show this guy
is a danger and the landlord does nothing then you may be able to get the
landlord.
I live in an apartment complex in California. Around a year ago a new
tenant moved in. He was pretty loud and inconsiderate and one of
neighbors
complained about him. After numerous complaints, the complex manager
spoke
with him. After that, started threatening all of the neighbors for
saying
"false things" about him. In the last year, he has threatened to
"get" at
least one of my neighbors, and rumor has it, threatened to "kill" one
neighbor
because they had gotten his car dirty. I have heard that each of
these
incidents were reported to the complex manager and they have done
nothing.
Apparently he even threatened the complex manager at one point.
Tonight when I was returning home, I ran into him in the stairwell. I
said
nothing and went about my business. He started saying insulting
things. I
asked what his problem was. He said he was going to "get" me for
saying
"false things" about him. I responded by saying that I hadn't even
seen him
for months so I don't know what he was talking about, and he said he
was going
to "get me" for what I had done and he "never forgot". He got in my
face and poked his finger into my nose in an extremely threatening
manner. Obviously he
blames me for a complaint that I never even filed.
This fellow strikes me as seriously deranged and extremely dangerous.
My
neighbors are terrified of him. I am concerned over what I should do
next.
If what I have heard is accurate,
complaints to the complex manager yield no results, and I have to live
next to this guy. What are my legal options here? Also, do landlords
have
any legal or fiducial responsibility to deal with tenants like this
guy?
|
| |
| |
Baloney, with few exceptions there are no rules other than what are written
into a lease or rental agreement. In their absence, the state/municipality
real property, landlord/tenant statutes or common law would apply. I've
owned and rented property in 4 states and have perused the statutes of many
others. I've yet to see a statute or regulation holding a landlord
responsible for good order and discipline nor have I seen such wording in a
lease or rental agreement. I doubt a landlord could be held accountable for
civil discipline beyond that of any other citizen. How many folks have been
prosecuted for failing to report threats of murder? I'd bet even fewer have
been prosecuted for failing to report overt intimidation. If a tenant breaks
the law while renting my property I might bounce him because it makes
economic sense but getting involved in a dispute between tenants is the
height of stupidity. I'd suppose there has to be at least one jurisdiction
attempting the ridiculous. I'd have to see a cite on that. Perhaps in the
land of fruits and nuts or one of those socialist states back east.
I see a lot of people here say you have nothing against this landlord.
Don't listen to them.. landlords have a duty to keep the place as secure
as
they can, short of posting guards at every corner. If you can show this
guy
is a danger and the landlord does nothing then you may be able to get the
landlord.
|
| |
| |
There are many cites which prove you wrong.
Failure of a landlord to take reasonable measures to correct a security
problem after the landlord has become aware of the problem could subject the
landlord to liability.
If a landlord is negligent and that negligence results in injury to another,
the landlord is liable for those resulting injuries.
The case of Penner v. Falk (1984) indicated that punitive damages would be
proper if the landlord knew of an existing dangerous condition and failed to
correct it. In the case the condition was property-related, however, it
could just as easily be caused by a dangerous tenant.
The case of McDaniel v. Sunset Manor Co. (1990) indicates any landlord who
undertakes to protect a tenant can be liable if he or she does so
negligently.
The case of Davis v. Gomez (1989) indicates that a landlord MAY HAVE A DUTY
TO PREVENT A SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACT.
From Am. Jur. 2d:
46. EXCEPTIONS TO RULE OF NONLIABILITY
The rule a private person has no duty to protect another from a criminal
attack by a third person in the absence of statute or some special
relationship or circumstance, [FN62] is subject to certain exceptions, as
where such a duty of protection is assumed by an express agreement, [FN63]
or where the relationship of common carrier and passenger exists. [FN64]
Furthermore, an exception to the rule of nonliability exists where the owner
or occupant of the premises should have foreseen or anticipated that
criminal assaults were likely to occur on the premises. [FN65]
See also:
Smith v General Apartment Co., 133 Ga App 927, 213 SE2d 74 (action against
landlord by plaintiff-tenant who was raped in her apartment by intruder).
--Landlord's Failure to Protect Tenants--Criminal Activity by Third Persons,
2 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 731.
Landlord's Liability to Tenant for Knowingly Allowing Other Tenant's
Dangerous Activity on Premises, 12 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 497.
Landowner's Failure to Provide Adequate Security, 42 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts
2d 173.
These all show many cases, most of which have been decided in the past 15
years, which indicate that landlords are more and more responsible for
maintaining a safe environment for their tenants.
Baloney, with few exceptions there are no rules other than what are
written
into a lease or rental agreement. In their absence, the state/municipality
real property, landlord/tenant statutes or common law would apply. I've
owned and rented property in 4 states and have perused the statutes of
many
others. I've yet to see a statute or regulation holding a landlord
responsible for good order and discipline nor have I seen such wording in
a
lease or rental agreement. I doubt a landlord could be held accountable
for
civil discipline beyond that of any other citizen. How many folks have
been
prosecuted for failing to report threats of murder? I'd bet even fewer
have
been prosecuted for failing to report overt intimidation. If a tenant
breaks
the law while renting my property I might bounce him because it makes
economic sense but getting involved in a dispute between tenants is the
height of stupidity. I'd suppose there has to be at least one jurisdiction
attempting the ridiculous. I'd have to see a cite on that. Perhaps in the
land of fruits and nuts or one of those socialist states back east.
as
guy
|
| |
| |
Falky,
These are good points but does notifying the landlord that you are
unhappy with your neighbor create an obligation. How much credibility does
such a notification have? Most of his facts seem to be hearsay. Here we have
a loud and obnoxious neighbor who has threatened to "get" some folks but has
not done so. The OP has the option of moving. Why do you wish to place the
burden on the landlord to act when the complainant will not. His post fails
to mention any attempt to interest the police in this problem. He wants
someone to decide that he is in the right and correct the problem. I think
that if the landlord has such obligations thrust on him that he will either
stop renting or raise the rent enough to hire a private security force. I
don't believe that either if these options would be good for society.
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
one of which have anything to do with a landlord's obligation to protect
tenants from bullying and intimidation. Your cites are smoke and mirrors
and either property related or use words such as "may have" and "more and
more". None of the cites you show have even the remotest relevance to the
situation at hand. I don't doubt some jurisdiction may have enacted
regulations or statutes making a landlord liable, after all some have
declared themselves "nuclear free zones". Nutters abound everywhere.
Show me a case where a landlord was convicted based on his failure to report
threats and intimidation or better yet, where he should have "foreseen or
anticipated " some act would have occurred.
In the situation described by the OP, one tenant intimidates another who
reports it to authorities. They do nothing. Why? Because the bully did
nothing the law can do anything about. So now the landlord should insert
himself in the process by reporting secondhand threats? Baloney. This tenant
then decides she is going to hang around despite firsthand knowledge of a
threat to her person. So is the landlord's obligation greater than that of
the OP/? Where is her responsibility or are we just scouting for a deep
pocket party to fund someone's life of leisure?
I know of one state that has enacted statutes allowing them to seize
property which has become a public threat due to drug activity and where the
landlord/owner fails to report the dwelling has become a drug haven. They've
had the law for 15 years now and no one has had their property taken.
There are many cites which prove you wrong.
Failure of a landlord to take reasonable measures to correct a security
problem after the landlord has become aware of the problem could subject
the
landlord to liability.
If a landlord is negligent and that negligence results in injury to
another,
the landlord is liable for those resulting injuries.
The case of Penner v. Falk (1984) indicated that punitive damages would be
proper if the landlord knew of an existing dangerous condition and failed
to
correct it. In the case the condition was property-related, however, it
could just as easily be caused by a dangerous tenant.
The case of McDaniel v. Sunset Manor Co. (1990) indicates any landlord who
undertakes to protect a tenant can be liable if he or she does so
negligently.
The case of Davis v. Gomez (1989) indicates that a landlord MAY HAVE A
DUTY
TO PREVENT A SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACT.
From Am. Jur. 2d:
46. EXCEPTIONS TO RULE OF NONLIABILITY
The rule a private person has no duty to protect another from a criminal
attack by a third person in the absence of statute or some special
relationship or circumstance, [FN62] is subject to certain exceptions, as
where such a duty of protection is assumed by an express agreement, [FN63]
or where the relationship of common carrier and passenger exists. [FN64]
Furthermore, an exception to the rule of nonliability exists where the
owner
or occupant of the premises should have foreseen or anticipated that
criminal assaults were likely to occur on the premises. [FN65]
See also:
Smith v General Apartment Co., 133 Ga App 927, 213 SE2d 74 (action against
landlord by plaintiff-tenant who was raped in her apartment by intruder).
--Landlord's Failure to Protect Tenants--Criminal Activity by Third
Persons,
2 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 731.
Landlord's Liability to Tenant for Knowingly Allowing Other Tenant's
Dangerous Activity on Premises, 12 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 497.
Landowner's Failure to Provide Adequate Security, 42 Am. Jur. Proof of
Facts
2d 173.
These all show many cases, most of which have been decided in the past 15
years, which indicate that landlords are more and more responsible for
maintaining a safe environment for their tenants.
written
many
a
for
been
have
breaks
|
| |
| |
Uh, okay, here are some cites. Now will you shut up?
In Scott v Watson (1976) 278 Md 160, 359 A2d 548, an action brought by the
daughter and personal representative of the estate of a tenant who was
killed in an apartment complex garage for his wrongful death against the
landlords, the court, answering questions certified to it, and stating that
the duty of a landlord to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his
tenants in common areas under his control is sufficiently flexible to be
applied to cases involving criminal activity without making the landlord an
insurer of his tenant's safety, ruled that if the landlord knows, or should
know, of criminal activity against persons or property in the common areas,
he then has a duty to take reasonable measures, in view of the existing
circumstances, to eliminate the conditions contributing to the criminal
activity.
The courts in the following cases held that a landlord's duty to maintain
common areas in a safe condition extends to making the premises safe from
criminal acts.
Cal--Ann M. v Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal 4th 666, 25 Cal
Rptr 2d 137, 863 P2d 207, 93 CDOS 9323, 93 Daily Journal DAR 15970, 1994 CCH
OSHD 30356.
Dist Col--Kline v 1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment Corp. (1970) 141 US App
DC 370, 439 F2d 477, 43 ALR3d 311 (applying District of Columbia law); Spar
v Obwoya (1977, Dist Col App) 369 A2d 173.
Fla--Holley v Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc. (1980, Fla App D3) 382 So 2d
98; Brown v. Suncharm Ranch, Inc., 748 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th
Dist. 1999).
Ga--Stephens v. Clairmont Center, Inc., 230 Ga. App. 793, 498 S.E.2d 307
(1998).
Md--Scott v Watson (1976) 278 Md 160, 359 A2d 548.
Mich--Samson v Saginaw Professional Bldg., Inc. (1975) 393 Mich 393, 224
NW2d 843 (criticized as stated in Bryant v Brannen, 180 Mich App 87, 446
NW2d 847, app den 436 Mich 875, reconsideration den (Mich) 1990 Mich LEXIS
3682) [FN58].
Mo--Aaron v Havens (1988, Mo) 758 SW2d 446; Stubbs v Panek (1992, Mo App)
829 SW2d 544; Schelp v Cohen-Esrey Real Estate Servs. (1994, Mo App) 889
SW2d 848.
NY--Gill v New York City Housing Authority (1987, 1st Dept) 130 App Div 2d
256, 519 NYS2d 364 [FN59].
The courts in the following cases have held or recognized as a general rule
or under the particular circumstances, that a landlord was under a duty to
exercise reasonable care to protect his tenants against foreseeable criminal
acts of third persons, and was subject to liability in tort for breach of
such duty.
Cal--O'Hara v Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977, 1st Dist) 75 Cal App 3d 798,
142 Cal Rptr 487; 7735 Hollywood Boulevard Venture v Superior Court of Los
Angeles County (1981, 2nd Dist) 116 Cal App 3d 901, 172 Cal Rptr 528
(disapproved on other grounds by Frances T. v Village Green Owners Ass'n, 42
Cal 3d 490, 229 Cal Rptr 456, 723 P2d 573, 59 ALR4th 447) and (disapproved
on other grounds as stated in Pamela W. v Millsom (4th Dist) 25 Cal App 4th
950, 30 Cal Rptr 2d 690, 94 CDOS 4184, 94 Daily Journal DAR 7722, review den
(Cal) 1994 Cal LEXIS 4286); Kwaitkowski v Superior Trading Co. (1981, 1st
Dist) 123 Cal App 3d 324, 176 Cal Rptr 494; Riley v Marcus (1981, 2nd Dist)
125 Cal App 3d 103, 177 Cal Rptr 827 (disapproved on other grounds by Isaacs
v Huntington Memorial Hospital, 38 Cal 3d 112, 211 Cal Rptr 356, 695 P2d
653).
Dist Col--Kline v 1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment Corp. (1970) 141 US App
DC 370, 439 F2d 477, 43 ALR3d 311 (applying District of Columbia law);
Graham v M & J Corp. (1980, Dist Col App) 424 A2d 103; Morton v Kirkland
(1989, Dist Col App) 558 A2d 693.
Fla--Paterson v Deeb (1985, Fla App D1) 472 So 2d 1210, 10 FLW 1417, review
den (Fla) 484 So 2d 8 and review den (Fla) 484 So 2d 9 and (criticized on
other grounds by Ten Associates v Brunson (Fla App D3) 492 So 2d 1149, 11
FLW 1768, review den (Fla) 501 So 2d 1281); L.K. v Water's Edge Asso. (1988,
Fla App D3) 532 So 2d 1097, 13 FLW 2273.
Ga--Cain v Vontz (1983, CA11 Ga) 703 F2d 1279 (applying Georgia law);
Bayshore Co. v Pruitt (1985) 175 Ga App 679, 334 SE2d 213.
Idaho--Sharp v W.H. Moore, Inc. (1990) 118 Idaho 297, 796 P2d 506.
Ky--Waldon v Housing Auth. of Paducah (1991, Ky App) 854 SW2d 777 [FN54].
Neb--K.S.R. v Novak & Sons, Inc. (1987) 225 Neb 498, 406 NW2d 636.
NY--Blatt v New York City Housing Authority (1986, 2d Dept) 123 App Div 2d
591, 506 NYS2d 877; Levin v Eleto Realty Corp. (1936) 160 Misc 141, 289 NYS
667; Jacobs v Helmsley-Spear, Inc. (1983) 121 Misc 2d 910, 469 NYS2d 555;
Perry v New York City Hous. Auth. (1995, App Div, 2d Dept) 635 NYS2d 661;
Eleby v New York City Hous. Auth. (1996, App Div, 2d Dept) 637 NYS2d 219;
Levine v. Fifth Housing Co., Inc., 662 N.Y.S.2d 95 (App. Div. 2d Dep't
1997).
NC--Shepard v Drucker & Falk (1983) 63 NC App 667, 306 SE2d 199.
Pa--Skalski v Baumholtz (1977, Pa CP) 1 Phila 332, 1977 Phila Cty Rptr LEXIS
16.
Tenn--Tedder v Raskin (1987, Tenn App) 728 SW2d 343; Allmond v Koger
Properties (1994, Tenn App) 1994 Tenn App LEXIS 757.
Tex--Fields v. Moore, 953 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1997).
The duty to protect a tenant from a criminal attack based on the
foreseeability of the attack was recognized where the tenant fell prey to
the same type of criminal conduct which had repeatedly been inflicted upon
other tenants by the same assailant, a person whose appearance and modus
operandi were known to the landlords in O'Hara v Western Seven Trees Corp.
(1977, 1st Dist) 75 Cal App 3d 798, 142 Cal Rptr 487. The court stated that
failure to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the common areas under
the landlords' control could have contributed substantially, as alleged, to
the tenant's injuries. The court also pointed out that the landlords'
possible liability was also suggested by the Restatement 2d, Torts 302B,
448, and 449.
A landlord's general duty to maintain the property, which is owed to tenants
and patrons, includes the duty to take reasonable steps to secure common
areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to
occur in the absence of such precautionary measures. Wiener v. Southcoast
Childcare Centers, Inc., 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 615, 88 P.3d 517 (Cal. 2004).
The duty of taking protective measures to guard the entire premises and the
areas peculiarly within the landlord's control against the perpetration of
foreseeable criminal acts rests upon the landlord in view of his exclusive
effective capacity to perform the necessary acts, the court held in Kline v
1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment Corp. (1970) 141 US App DC 370, 439 F2d
477, 43 ALR3d 311 (applying District of Columbia law).
--- There are about a billion more but I'm getting bored.
|
| |
| |
No idea bro. I don't know the whole story. Courts generally look down on
landlords saying "Oh he can just move if he thinks the premises are too
dangerous." That's against public policy. Landlords have an affirmative
duty to render their premises habitable, which includes preventing
foreseeable crime. If somebody repeatedly says, "I'm going to get you" to a
bunch of tenants, that's foreseeable.
I agree his case would be much stronger if he also notified the police and
notified the landlord in writing about the problem. If many tenants
informed the landlord, and the landlord did nothing, and something happened,
that would be almost an iron-clad tort case in most jurisdictions.
There is also another way to look at the aggressive tenant, as a nuisance.
Landlords also have a duty to remove nuisances from their property if those
nuisances affect the public negatively.
You're right, landlords do raise the rent to cover extra security measures.
I'm not saying what's right and wrong, just what is. And it's an area of
law that's still up in the air, but it's moving more and more in favor of
the renter.
Falky,
These are good points but does notifying the landlord that you are
unhappy with your neighbor create an obligation. How much credibility does
such a notification have? Most of his facts seem to be hearsay. Here we
have
a loud and obnoxious neighbor who has threatened to "get" some folks but
has
not done so. The OP has the option of moving. Why do you wish to place the
burden on the landlord to act when the complainant will not. His post
fails
to mention any attempt to interest the police in this problem. He wants
someone to decide that he is in the right and correct the problem. I think
that if the landlord has such obligations thrust on him that he will
either
stop renting or raise the rent enough to hire a private security force. I
don't believe that either if these options would be good for society.
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
line v. 1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment Corp.
439 F.2d 477
WILKEY, Circuit Judge:
The appellee apartment corporation states that there is 'only one issue
presented for review whether a duty should be placed on a landlord to take
steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts committed by third
parties.' The District Court as a matter of law held that there is no such
duty. We find that there is, and that in the circumstances here the
applicable standard of care was breached. We therefore reverse and remand to
the District Court for the determination of damages for the appellant.
....
In the case at bar we place the duty of taking protective measures guarding
the entire premises and the areas peculiarly under the landlord's control
against the perpetration of criminal acts upon the landlord, the party to
the lease contract who has the effective capacity to perform these necessary
acts.
As a footnote to Javins, supra, Judge Wright, in clearing away some of the
legal underbrush from medieval common law obscuring the modern
landlordtenant relationship, referred to an innkeeper's liability in
comparison with that of the landlord to his tenant. 'Even the old common law
courts responded with a different rule for a landlord-tenant relationship
which did not conform to the model of the usual agrarian lease. Much more
substantial obligations were placed upon the keepers of inns (the only
multiple dwelling houses known to the common law).'
Specifically, innkeepers have been held liable for assaults which have been
committed upon their guests by third parties, if they have breached a duty
which is imposed by reason of the innkeeperguest relationship. By this duty,
the innkeeper is generally bound to exercise reasonable care to protect the
guest from abuse or molestation from third parties, be they innkeeper's
employees, fellow guests, or intruders, if the attack could, or in the
exercise of reasonable care, should have been anticipated.
Liability in the innkeeper-guest relationship is based as a matter of law
either upon the innkeeper's supervision, care, or control of the premises,
[FN12] or by reason of a contract which some courts have implied from the
entrustment by the guest of his personal comfort and safety to the
innkeeper. In the latter analysis, the contract is held to give the guest
the right to except a standard of treatment at the hands of the innkeeper
which includes an obligation on the part of the latter to exercise
reasonable care in protecting the guest.
Other relationships in which similar duties have been imposed include
landowner-invitee, businessman-patron, employer-*483 **376 employee, *483
school district-pupil, hospital-patient, and carrier-passenger. [FN14] In
all, the theory of liability is essentially the same; that since the ability
of one of the parties to provide for his own protection has been limited in
some way by his submission to the control of the other, a duty should be
imposed upon the one possessing control (and thus the power to act) to take
reasonable precautions to protect the other one from assaults by third
parties which, at least, could reasonably have been anticipated. However,
there is no liability normally imposed upon the one having the power to act
if the violence is sudden and unexpected provided that the source of the
violence is not an employee of the one in control. [FN15]
We are aware of various cases in other jurisdictions following a different
line of reasoning, conceiving of the landlord and tenant relationship along
more traditional common law lines, and on varying fact situations reaching a
different result from that we reach here. Typical of these is a much cited
(although only a 4-3) decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Goldberg
v. Housing Authority of Newark, supra relied on by appellee landlord here.
There the court said:
Everyone can foresee the commission of crime virtually anywhere and at any
time. If foreseeability itself gave rise to a duty to provide 'police'
protection for others, every residential curtilage, every shop, every store,
every manufacturing plant would have to be patrolled by the private arm of
the owner. And since hijacking and attack upon occupants of motor vehicles
are also foreseeable, it would be the duty of every motorist ot provide
armed protection for his passengers and the property of others. Of course,
none of this is at all palatable. [FN16]
We are aware of various cases in other jurisdictions following a different
line of reasoning, conceiving of the landlord and tenant relationship along
more traditional common law lines, and on varying fact situations reaching a
different result from that we reach here. Typical of these is a much cited
(although only a 4-3) decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Goldberg
v. Housing Authority of Newark, supra relied on by appellee landlord here.
There the court said:
Everyone can foresee the commission of crime virtually anywhere and at any
time. If foreseeability itself gave rise to a duty to provide 'police'
protection for others, every residential curtilage, every shop, every store,
every manufacturing plant would have to be patrolled by the private arm of
the owner. And since hijacking and attack upon occupants of motor vehicles
are also foreseeable, it would be the duty of every motorist ot provide
armed protection for his passengers and the property of others. Of course,
none of this is at all palatable. [FN16]
This language seems to indicate that the court was using the word
foreseeable interchangeably with the word possible. In that context, the
statement is quite correct. It would be folly to impose liability for mere
possibilities. But we must reach the question of liability for attacks which
are foreseeable in the sense that they are probable and predictable. Thus,
the United States Supreme Court, in Lillie v. Thompson [FN17] encountered no
difficulty in finding that the defendant-employer was liable to the employee
because it 'was aware of conditions which created a likelihood' of criminal
attack.
....
Summarizing our analysis, we find that this duty of protection arises, first
of all, from the logic of the situation itself. If we were answering without
the benefit of any prior precedent the issue as posed *484 **377 by the
appellee landlord here, 'whether a duty should be placed on a landlord to
take steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts committed by
third parties,' we should have no hesitancy in answering it affirmatively,
at least on the basis of the facts of this case.
....
Municipal police cannot patrol the entryways and the hallways, the garages
and the basements of private multiple unit apartment dwellings. They are
neither equipped, manned, nor empowered to do so. In the area of the
predictable risk which materialized in this case, only the landlord could
have taken measures which might have prevented the injuries suffered by
appellant.
We note that in the fight against crime the police are not expected to do it
all; [FN18] every segment of society has obligations to aid in law
enforcement and to minimize the opportunities for crime. ... It is only just
that the obligations of landlords in their sphere be acknowledged and
enforced. [FN19]
....
FN18. In this regard, we observe that in some of the relationships in which
a duty of protection has been f
|
| |
| |
Uh, okay, here are some cites. Now will you shut up?
Clearly it is a disgusting statement of the society that seeks to place
blame on the party that took no part in the festivities while the perp
walks. I note these are civil actions. Probably because no proscutor would
attempt such foolishness. In civil court lunacy prevails. Obviously the
attorneys aren't going to get paid by filing suit against the perp. Sounds
like another McDonalds coffee action. I know which party will be out on
their ass first, now. The one with the most likelyhood of doing me economic
damage. Is it any wonder the people mistrust the legal system and lawyers
evoke less confidence than a used car salesman.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Dirk Bussiere wrote:
...
A threat to "get" you may not be actionable.
However, poking "his finger into" your nose sounds like assault and
battery. Ask the police to investigate. If the threats mentioned
in the paragraph I snipped really DID amount to death threats,
I see no reason why the police wouldn't investigate.
You might also seek a protective order in court. If the order
is granted, the first notice he would get would be service
of the order.
Dream on. If it were so easy, half of the world would be in jail.
You need good legal evidence. And even then the usual response by the
person who made the threat was that I was drunk, don't remember and
didn't mean it if I said such a thing.
You can't spend your whole life moving, living in fear or trying to get
somebody jailed for threats.
I have had good and bad neighbours, mostly less than idea and usually
bad neighbours move but never so soon as as you think for the very
reason that they can't easily find a nice place to live with their
reputation. Personally, I would much rather live next to a threatening
idiot than an alcoholic who smokes and could cause a fire.
The legal/court system is extremely slow, very inefficient, and a option
of last resort.
|
| |
| |
Don Zimmerman wrote:
tjab wrote:
It doesn't sound like your neighbor is anything more than an obnoxious
pain in the ass.
Or possibly a potentially violent paranoid schizophrenic.
The legal system won't help you. Move.
The legal system won't help you if someone threatens to kill you? Doesn't
say much for the legal system.
This brings back memories of the old westerns where bad guys ride into town
and create havoc. The residents are afraid and believe nothing can be
done, so they let the bad guys have their way. Some good people advise
other good people to move. The sheriff and the judge are intimidated and
can't help. [...]
And then John Wayne comes into town and sets things straight (even if the
people think that it was Jimmy Stewart who did it).
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
"TinCanMan" <TinCanMan@nowhere.nyet> wrote in message
-snip-
I guess the moral to the story is to take care of the matter yourself.
Landlords won't do #@($.
Mez
Well gee, could that be because landlords rent property and aren't in the
personal protection business? If you have civil or criminal problems, you
talk to the police or an attorney. If you want a bodyguard to defend your
honor, hire one. The landlord won't be comming to your rescue here.
If it had been some scumbag off the streets my problem would have been
over as soon as I drove past the security gates. The crackhead who
was pestering me was a fellow tenant and as such had keys to get
inside the gates.
If Cracky McCrackhead had been playing his stereo too loud I would
have called the landlord to complain and been well within my rights.
Are you trying to say that stereos are disruptive but neighbors
knocking on my door at all hours is not?
A simple warning from the landlord would have probably solved the
problem; certainly all it took was one visit from my brother and I
never saw the asshole again. The only other solution is to break the
lease and I would have needed a record of my attempts to rectify the
situation if I wanted to do that.
Mez
|
| |
| |
occupant wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
You might also seek a protective order in court. If the order
is granted, the first notice he would get would be service
of the order.
Dream on. If it were so easy, half of the world would be in jail.
Protective orders are relatively fast, and don't require much
evidence.
|
| |
| |
"TinCanMan" <TinCanMan@nowhere.nyet> wrote in message
-snip-
I guess the moral to the story is to take care of the matter yourself.
Landlords won't do #@($.
Mez
If it had been some scumbag off the streets my problem would have been
over as soon as I drove past the security gates. The crackhead who
was pestering me was a fellow tenant and as such had keys to get
inside the gates.
If Cracky McCrackhead had been playing his stereo too loud I would
have called the landlord to complain and been well within my rights.
Are you trying to say that stereos are disruptive but neighbors
knocking on my door at all hours is not?
A simple warning from the landlord would have probably solved the
problem; certainly all it took was one visit from my brother and I
never saw the asshole again. The only other solution is to break the
lease and I would have needed a record of my attempts to rectify the
situation if I wanted to do that.
Mez
And yet somehow you can't see your way clear to report a threat to your
person to law enforcement. Whyizzat? Let's see here. You have crackey hangin
in your house and won't leave. He later peeks in the windows so your first
inclination is to call the landlord who is expected to do what, precisely?
Call 911 for you? Come running over, confront crackey and get blown away by
a nutter that stole that gun in his last B&E? Not me lady. I'm no hero.
Phone in your house can call the 911 number just as well as mine and get
action lots faster.
|
| |
| |
"TinCanMan" <TinCanMan@NoSpam.net> wrote in message news:<dsydnUymXJMWUcXcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>...
And yet somehow you can't see your way clear to report a threat to your
person to law enforcement. Whyizzat? Let's see here. You have crackey hangin
in your house and won't leave. He later peeks in the windows so your first
inclination is to call the landlord who is expected to do what, precisely?
Call 911 for you? Come running over, confront crackey and get blown away by
a nutter that stole that gun in his last B&E? Not me lady. I'm no hero.
Phone in your house can call the 911 number just as well as mine and get
action lots faster.
1. I called the police first. Since I'd had already gotten him out of
the house they told me to call back when there was an imminent threat.
2. I didn't call 911 and wouldn't expect my landlord to do so. My
life wasn't in danger so calling 911 would have been an abuse of that
system.
3. No, I did not expect the landlord to intercede in person. I
expected him to call or write his tenant warning him that his behavior
was considered an unacceptable use of the property. I have been a
landlord myself and would have done as much.
Mez
|
| |
| |
"TinCanMan" <TinCanMan@NoSpam.net> wrote in message
news:<dsydnUymXJMWUcXcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>...
"TinCanMan" <TinCanMan@nowhere.nyet> wrote in message
-snip-
I guess the moral to the story is to take car | | |
