Landlord's Duty of Care

ISSUE

Whether the landlord's duty of care includes prevention of assault and delivery of prompt aid to an injured tenant.

BRIEF ANSWER

Summary judgment for MCP is probable because it did not breach a duty of care to Plaintiff, nor did it cause or aggravate her injuries. MCP did not create nor facilitate a condition conducive to criminal assaults. Rather, recognizing the risks and in accord with its duty, MCP took proactive measures to mitigate criminal assaults and resulting injuries. Thus, Plaintiff has no cause of action. A prima facie case must establish: 1) That Defendant had a legal duty to protect Plaintiff; 2) That Defendant’s conduct breached that duty to Plaintiff; 3) That Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from Defendant’s misconduct; and 4) The amount of loss suffered by Plaintiff. Samson v. Saginaw Prof’l Bldg., Inc., 224 N.W.2d 843, 850 (Mich. 1975). Plaintiff’s claims extend beyond the scope of the legal duty imposed. The strength of this prediction relies on more information about MCP's rationale to employ a guard force and a verification of the adequacy of lighting in the Motor City parking lot.

FACTS

MCP owns and operates Motor City Center in an average crime area of Detroit. In recent years there have been some crimes, mostly automobile related, at Motor City. Motor City leases commercial and residential space and includes a shopping mall. MCP maintains 24-hour security in the apartment building. Also, it maintains a guard in the office/mall complex from 7AM to 11PM. The guards are required to investigate any problem that comes to their attention. For cost reasons, MCP does not employ a full-time parking lot guard. MCP asserts that the placement of guards coincides with the location of its patrons and the disturbances, which, in its estimation, were mostly in the buildings. MCP has not received any complaints as to the adequacy of lighting in the Motor City parking lot.

Deidre Montana, a Motor City...