412 A.2d 436 (N.J. 1980)
Florence Trentacost, a 61-year-old widow, had rented a four-room apartment at 273 Monroe Street in Passaic, New Jersey, for more than ten years from defendant Dr. Nathan T. Brussel.1
The building contained eight dwelling units located over street-level stores, with access through front and rear entrances.2 A padlock secured the back entrance, but the front door had no lock.3
On the afternoon of December 21, 1973, Trentacost returned from shopping and entered the building.4 After reaching the top of the stairs leading to her apartment, an unknown attacker grabbed her ankles from behind, dragged her down the stairs, and stole her purse after she lay bleeding in the hallway.5
She was hospitalized for 15 days with injuries including a dislocated right shoulder, fractures of the left shoulder, left ankle and jaw, lacerations about the mouth, and broken teeth.6 She wore casts on her arms and leg for about a month and a half.7
At trial, evidence showed that police had investigated from 75 to 100 crimes in the neighborhood over the preceding three years, mostly burglaries and street muggings.8 Trentacost had reported an attempted break-in at the building's cellar two months before the attack.9 At other times she had notified the landlord of the presence of unauthorized persons in the hallways.10
The landlord denied ever discussing the subject of installing a lock on the front door prior to the assault.11 The trial court granted Trentacost's motion to strike the defense of contributory negligence.12 After the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff of $3,000, the trial court denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.13 When defendant refused to consent to an additur of $15,000, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial as to damages.14 A second jury found damages in the sum of $25,000.15 The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, and the Supreme Court granted certification.16
Whether a residential landlord may be held liable for failing to prevent a criminal assault on a tenant by providing inadequate security for common areas of the rental premises?17
A landlord owes to his tenants the duty of exercising reasonable care to guard against foreseeable dangers arising from the use of premises in connection with those portions which remain within the landlord's control.18 Upon a logical extension of negligence principles a landlord may be held liable for creating an unreasonably enhanced risk of loss resulting from foreseeable criminal conduct.19
Yes. Florence Trentacost rented her apartment for more than ten years in a building with eight units where the front entrance remained under the landlord's control and lacked any lock while the rear entrance had a padlock.20 Police had investigated from 75 to 100 crimes in the neighborhood over three years.21 Trentacost had reported an attempted cellar break-in two months earlier along with unauthorized persons in the hallways.22 The landlord took no steps to install a lock despite these conditions.23
The jury could therefore conclude that the absence of a lock on the front door created a foreseeable risk of criminal assault.24 The landlord unreasonably enhanced that risk by failing to provide even minimal security measures in the common areas.25 This evidence supported liability under ordinary negligence standards without requiring proof that the landlord knew of the specific risk in advance.26
The residential landlord may be held liable under traditional negligence principles for failing to provide adequate security in the common areas.27
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Clifford
Justice Schreiber concurred on the narrow ground that the landlord had a duty under traditional tort theory based on the administrative regulation.28 The regulation adopted by the Commissioner of Community Affairs required that building entrance doors and other exterior exit doors shall be equipped with heavy duty lock sets.29 He explained that this regulation, having the effect of law, prescribed a standard of conduct for owners of multiple dwellings with respect to a part of the premises under the landlord's control.30
A tenant may have a cause of action in negligence for failure of the landlord to comply with that standard.31 He found no need to search for or rely upon any other doctrine to respond to the question certified.32 Justice Clifford joined in this opinion.33
Justice Clifford joined the concurrence on the traditional tort theory.34 He dissented in part from any extension of the implied warranty of habitability to impose liability for criminal intrusions without proof of notice or particular circumstances showing foreseeability.35 In his view the existence of a duty should arise from the particular circumstances of the case, including foreseeability, rather than solely from the landlord-tenant relationship.36
He emphasized that novel application of the implied warranty to criminal activity was unwarranted and that traditional negligence principles had served well in balancing the interests of the parties.37
Whether the landlord was obligated to secure the entrance to the common areas of the tenant's building?38
Yes. The front entrance was a common area outside any tenant's individual control.41 The building sat in a neighborhood where from 75 to 100 crimes had been investigated in three years.42 Trentacost had notified the landlord of an attempted break-in and unauthorized persons in the hallways.43 By leaving the front door completely unsecured the landlord failed to take reasonable measures against the foreseeable risk of intrusion and thereby breached the duty to secure the entrance.44
The landlord was obligated to secure the entrance to the common areas of the building.45
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Clifford
Justice Schreiber would answer the certified question affirmatively solely on the basis of the regulation that mandated heavy duty lock sets on entrance doors.46 The established principle that violation of such a regulation supplies a standard of conduct for a common-law negligence action supported his conclusion.47 He emphasized that the regulation had the effect of law and prescribed a standard of conduct for owners of multiple dwellings.48
The underlying policy of the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law was to assure decent, standard and safe units of dwelling space.49
Whether the implied warranty of habitability requires a landlord to furnish reasonable safeguards to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal activity on the premises?50
Yes. Modern residential leases encompass not only four walls but also the expectation of reasonable security from criminal intrusion.53 The front entrance formed part of the premises.54 Its total lack of any lock rendered the common areas accessible to criminals in a high-crime neighborhood.55 The landlord therefore breached the implied warranty by failing to provide even elementary security measures that were vital to habitability.56
The implied warranty of habitability requires a landlord to furnish reasonable safeguards to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal activity on the premises.57
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Clifford dissented from the majority's application of the implied warranty of habitability to criminal activity.58 That theory imposes what amounts to absolute liability based merely on the landlord-tenant relationship and loose notions of foreseeability.59 In his view the existence of a duty here should not be grounded simply on a special relationship between the parties but rather should arise from the particular circumstances of the case, including foreseeability.60
He shared the majority's concern with modern crime but found novel application of the warranty unwarranted and ill-advised.61
Whether violation of administrative regulations governing the condition of multiple dwellings constitutes evidence of a landlord's negligence in failing to provide adequate security?62
Yes. The eight-unit building qualified as a multiple dwelling subject to the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law and its implementing regulations.65 Regulation 602.3(f)(2)(i) required building entrance doors to be equipped with heavy duty lock sets.66 The complete absence of any lock on the front door at the time of the assault violated that regulation.67 It therefore supplied evidence of negligence for the jury to weigh.68
Violation of administrative regulations governing the condition of multiple dwellings constitutes evidence of a landlord's negligence in failing to provide adequate security.69