*1 complete plaintiffs loss of the period, the effect is draconian: Moreover, in tolling provisions action. issue cause of provisions the instant should be viewed tandem with case in his or own relating disability to the of a minor sue her name. conclusion, calculating majority’s approach
petitioner’s tolling period often-quoted harkens lament I little “Common sense is not so common.” see Voltaire: reaching a statute that is based an individual difference has of 18” and one based on an individual who “age vast birthday,” his or “18th I doubt reached her any see majority people would difference. Judge joins opinion. this dissenting BELL
Chief A.2d 443
Suzette HEMMINGS LIMITED PELHAM WOOD LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, al. LIMITED et Term, Sept. No. Maryland. Appeals Court 16, 2003. June *4 Clements, Bekman, Marder (Salsbury, A. Laurence Marder Baltimore, Adkins, L.L.C., brief), petitioner. for & on (Jennifer Whiteford, Tay- Ryan Lazenby, Philip B. Barnes L.L.P., brief), Towson, lor, Preston, respondents. for RAKER, C.J., ELDRIDGE, BELL, Argued before BATTAGLIA, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and JJ. BATTAGLIA, J. an to review order Hemmings petitioned Court
Suzette Wood in favor of Pelham summary judgment entered Management, and RLA Liability Partnership Limited Limited (hereinafter “Landlord”), manager, L.L.P. the owner (hereinafter Apartments “Pel- respectively, of Pelham Wood Wood”). Hemmings’ petition Ms. to decide granted ham We dangerous or repair a known a landlord has whether prevent under its control to foreseeable defective condition a tenant within a leased party upon criminal attack unit, and whether there is sufficient evidence apartment summary judgment inappropriate. to make such condition below, that the Circuit explained For the reasons we conclude entry summary judgment was error. Court’s Background I.
A. Facts husband, 25, 1997, Hemmings, with her Ms. On November Land- Hemmings, agreement into with the Howard entered Wood, Pelham lord to lease two-bedroom consisting of four hundred multi-building apartment complex County. Hemmings’ provided lease units in Baltimore part: AND TENANT AGREE:
LANDLORD *5 right [apart- 17. That Landlord has the [the] enter the force, any by key by necessary, time master or if ment] Premises, inspect repair/alterations make in the [apartment] or property, [the] elsewhere Landlord’s any provision [apart- enforce of this Lease or to show the prospective purchasers ment] to future tenants or without therefore, being prosecution damages by liable or reason thereof.
22. ... responsible That Landlord shall [the] be for re- pairs [apartment], its equipment appliances fur- by nished [the] Landlord....
LANDLORD AGREES: 35. That the [apartment] will be made available such constitute, it will not contain conditions that or if not properly constitute, corrected would a fire or hazard life, serious and substantial threat to safety health or occupants.
TENANT AGREES:
45. That shall injury, [the] Landlord liable for or damage loss to or person property caused other persons, theft, vandalism, fire, tenants or other caused water, smoke, explosions or other causes unless the same is exclusively omission, fault, negligence due to the or other misconduct Landlord. [the] AND
RULES REGULATIONS
TENANT WILL NOT: Change the locks on the doors of the Premises or install locks, knockers,
additional door chairs other fasteners prior without permission written Landlord [the] Court, Lynfair at 5 one of several Hemmings resided *6 apartment at buildings Pelham Wood. Their two-bedroom unit, A-2, apartment Apartment was located on the second Court, Lynfair just ground apart- above the floor of 5 level glass Hemmings’ apartment A in the sliding ment. door patio balcony overlooking wooded allowed access to a rear area. Wood, attempt at Pelham
In an to deter implemented the Landlord had several devices. Gartner, corporate designee, stated Howard the Landlord’s lighting property is around the [and that exterior “[t]here door on its door apartment regular has lock front each that] door For apartments as as a dead bolt lock.” the with well doors, patio Hemmings’, provided like the the Landlord “what Bar,” horizontally commonly as a Charlie referred addition, securing sliding glass mounted bar the door. them,” locks [apartment] windows on and there “[t]he ha[d] hallways.” For lighting was “interior [common area] only, the Landlord ground apartments the “terrace” or level which, armed, systems, generated alarm provided also once opens apartment and “strong loud noise” when one an door. 13,1998, 1:17 an approximately At a.m. on June unidentified through Hemmings’ apartment intruder entered the the slid- ing and, glass upon encountering Hemmings door Mr. apartment bedroom, shot Mr. him twice the abdomen. Hemmings gunshot morning died wounds that from later University Maryland Trauma Shock Center. attack, County Department
After the the Baltimore Police report an investigation. police initiated incident intruder, investigation1 who was not known to noted forcing Hemmings, apartment by open Mr. entered the sliding glass patio. from the door County Department quash 1. The Baltimore Police moved to Ms. Hem- subpoena investigation. mings’ related to the This for documents therefore, only granted. report, provided motion was The incident police. investigation available information from Gunning, Patrick M. a contractor whom Landlord had repair sliding glass Hemmings’ hired to door in the on June that the left noted “whole side of [,the [sliding glass locking frame area door] of] the meeha- nism[,] totally ... was and mutilated” aluminum twisted,” “mangled,' frame around the door was and “de- stroyed.” He also stated the locking mechanism no longer appeared irreparable, functioned and that it as if “somebody jackhammer actually had taken a beat it to According to Gunning, death.” Mr. on the door marks mechanism, locking which believed he had been caused object, door, were on the exterior side of the no and marks appeared portion the interior the door. As for the door, portion middle sliding Gunning Mr. recalled that *7 “it was outward as it could go actually flexed far as without breaking glass.” the Gunning
Mr. also remains of Bar described the a Charlie on sliding glass repaired. the door he Mr. Gunning believed a on Charlie Bar had been the door “at one time” because “the lays cradle that Charlie in” [the Bar] remained attached the repairs. itself, door at of his for though, the time As the bar “nothing he found of a bar Mr. Gun- [Charlie] whatsoever.” ning replaced mechanism,” old “housing disposing the of it and furnishing entirely an new Bar for Charlie the door. apartment
Several tenants the building where the Hem- mings lived, Lynfair Court, recalled the of the lighting state building prior around their to the Hemmings incident. One light indicated against that there was “not a fixture the wall apartment” ... outside of in the rear of 5 Lynfair [her] Court. immediately Hemmings’ Another who below apart- lived incident, ment at the time lighting described the at the building rear of the as “Pitch follows: dark. You can’t see anything. if I outside, Even would I identify look couldn’t anyone really that area because it is dark.” That Lynfair stated that front of 5 Court lit was but that well building equipped the back of was working light with a and was “too dark.” Still tenant of Lynfair another Court building recalled that back of had “always been dark” lighting “[w]ay additional after” the until Landlord added Hemmings incident. at the of the property manager time Pelham Wood
The Sultan, provided description the exterior shooting, Marsha is a that there Lynfair around 5 Court. She stated lighting door a roof building,” front into the light on the “entrance a roof “in the light facing building,” light of the “side not sure building.” back Ms. Sultan was whether was working Hemmings was “at time Mr. lighting exterior shot.” Gartner, designee, de- the Landlord’s also corporate
Mr. way that he could not tell “one or the other” whether clared Lynfair functioning on lights of 5 Court were exterior certain, however, no lights 1998. He were June was Lynfair date. place balcony of 5 Court on that reports twenty had Department Police filed crime burglaries two rob- burglaries attempted nine armed two-year had at Pelham over the beries that occurred Wood Hemmings.2 Mr. One period involving the incident preceding an alleged place armed robberies took inside unit; who, bearing an a sub- the other involved assailant approached the victim from the woods near gun, machine that, reports crime further apartment building. The indicated burglaries, apart- had entered the five of the intruder door. through sliding glass ment its *8 list, report Department A call which the Police maintains service, police telephone requesting track calls listed several that at listed violent crimes had occurred Pelham Wood. The rape, rape, rob- kidnaping, attempted included armed crimes and incidents of first or bery, robbery, unarmed numerous assaults, Lyn- of had occurred at 5 second-degree one which against list also report fair included crimes Court. as and and and enter- property burglary, breaking such theft reported department's indicates an addi- police 2. The list of calls that report burglaries occurring forty calls made to at Pelham tional were Wood. ing. report One indicated that a theft had occurred at 5 Lynfair report Court on November 1996. Another indicat- that, 3, 1996, burglary on had of ed October there been apartment Hemmings same later had leased. The report describing burglary, crime form of occurrence recalled, which the downstairs tenants stated that the intrud- apartment through patio using ers entered the the “rear door” entry [through to gain patio.” tool “un[known] the] addition, the Landlord maintained files -withtenant com- plaints activity apartment about criminal in and around the complex. During period 1, 1995, July between and June 30, 1998, complained types Tenants had about various of robbery, criminal robbery, gun- activities: armed threats at point, apartment units, vandalism, theft within break-ins, burglaries attempted burglaries, theft from a areas, balcony, in common drug theft use in common Furthermore, areas. complaints, of these tenant four men- burglaries, complained attempted tioned two burglaries, and robbery. one involved a than complaints;
Other the tenant the Landlord did not keep records activity of criminal at Pelham Wood. Neverthe- less, Mr. Department, Gartner stated the Police on two occasions, requested the Landlord’s in conducting assistance for suspected surveillance criminal activity. Gartner also that, stated or four years,” “three [occasions] he had present police been when stopped by officers had the Pelham Wood report rental office to incidents crime that had occurred on premises. Additionally, about four or five per year, times complained tenants had to the rental office Wood, about break-ins at Pelham manager and the rental had informed Mr. complaints. Gartner
Ms. Sultan stated that she had that “ha[sn’t] much knowl- edge happening” crime at Pelham Wood and never has contacted the Department Police concerning its records of crime Pelham Wood. any police Neither has she reviewed reports premises. on the *9 History
B. Procedural 14, 1999, and Hemmings wrongful filed death June Ms. On Landlord in Circuit Court for against claims survival allegations, she County. Among Hemmings’ Ms. Baltimore Landlord “failed to exercise reasonable care stated that the occurring from prevent harm taking precautions sufficient dangerous “negligently Hemmings]” allow[ed] and [the apart- Hemmings’ at the conditions to remain unaddressed ment.” discovery, Landlord and Ms. parties conducted After The summary judgment. motions for Hemmings filed cross duty to Mr. and Mrs. it “owed no posited Landlord from the violent crime” because Hemmings them than place apartment in the victim’s rather murder took “[t]he building.” Land- apartment area of the the common contended, it had “fulfilled all of the additionally, lord they voluntarily undertook security measures In apartment complex.” and re- Hemmings’ apartment Landlord, as a matter Hemmings argued Ms. that the sponse, security to law, “legal duty provide adequate owed inter alia activity” by “providing] ade- prevent the by “adequately securing] quate lighting” exterior Hemmingses’ apartment....” arguments July motions on Court heard
The Circuit and, summary judgment day, that same decided that granted. Circuit in favor of the Landlord should be view, standard of care the Landlord acted within the Court’s doors. The working locks on the providing reasoning orally: his Judge explained Circuit Court mean, get say first You on one hand I I can’t tier. obviously in. That means that the intruder had to break properly and there were locks that place was secure if door was secured. And there was worked and the in, it and didn’t that means the nothing wrong with he break twice, 22, 1999, July Hemmings complaint her once on 3. Ms. amended August allegations appear in Ms. again on 1999. These final Hemmings' complaint.’ second amended *10 in this particular tenant case allowed the intruder in. Un- theory, I any duty der either don’t see where there is go any landlord to than that. I think further the Court of Special Appeals will have to sort it out. Hemmings appealed
Ms.
of Special Appeals,
Court
which
summary judgment, holding
affirmed the
that “[f]rom the
facts
presented,
fact finder would be constrained to conclude
could
no showing
there
[the Landlord’s] failure
proximate
maintain the common
was
areas
cause of the
Wood,
311,
fatal
Hemmings
Md.App.
event.”
v. Pelham
144
(2002).
323-24,
851,
797 A.2d
Although
859
the intermediate
appellate
recognized
court
that the Landlord had a
provide
security against
reasonable
criminal acts in
com-
mon areas of
it
apartment complex,
apply
refused to
require protection
from criminal acts that occur within
premises.
6,
the leased
Id. at
n.
319 &
Does a landlord a duty repair have a known dangerous or defective condition prevent under its control to a foreseeable party upon attack a tenant within premises, the leased and was there sufficient evidence of such condition to make summary judgment inappropriate?4 question We answer this in the affirmative.
II. Standard of Review This Court plenary exercises review over trial court’s to grant summary judgment. decision Beyer See v. Hemmings’ petition presented Ms. for writ of following certiorari questions: three
1. Does the mere fact is murdered an unknown breaking intruder within the entering demised after preclude a landlord’s under circumstances in which the provide landlord has retained control over and assumed a crime, adequate lighting exterior to deter and the landlord’s failure to 534 335, 359, Univ., 707, A.2d 721 369 Md. 800
Morgan State
Fund,
(2002);
Md.
Injured
Workers’ Ins.
Schmerling
(2002).
715,
Nevertheless,
434, 443,
“ordinarily
795 A.2d
granting
summary judgment
affirm
of a
we will not
judge.” Cheney
trial
v. Bell
upon
not relied
reason
1135,
Ins.,
761, 764,
Md.
556 A.2d
National
Life
320,
(1989);
305 Md.
George’s County,
v. Prince
Henley
see
(1986);
1333,
Balti
333,
1339-40
Geisz v. Greater
503 A.2d
Ctr.,
n.
313 Md.
314 n.
more Medical
(1988).
summary judgment,
an order for
we
reviewing
require
the trial court conformed to the
determine whether
*11
2-501(e),
that
Maryland
provides
Rule
which
ments under
in favor of or
judgment
against
court shall enter
“[t]he
no
response
if motion and
show that there is
moving party
party
in
any
as to
material fact and
genuine dispute
as a
judgment
judgment
favor
is entered is entitled to
whose
Therefore,
reviewing
in
of law.”
the Circuit Court’s
matter
summary
must first
whether
grant
judgment,
we
determine
MTA,
149,
Md.
dispute.
in
Todd v.
373
material facts are
(2003).
154-55,
930, 933
If no material facts are
816 A.2d
the Circuit Court “was
disputed,
inquiry
our
becomes whether
correct,” or,
words, correctly
in
legally
other
determined
Id.
judgment
Landlord was entitled to
as matter
law.
Furthermore,
155,
reviewing a trial
535 for we summary judgment, court’s order construe facts properly before the court as well as reasonable inferences in may light drawn from most them favorable 161, non-moving party. (citing Id. Okwa Md. Harper, v. 360 (2000)). 178, 118, 127 Dermer, 344, 355-56, 47,
In Brown v.
Md.
744
357
A.2d
53-
(2000),
recently
summary judg
54
we
discussed the role
determining
ordinarily
ment
matters that
are
reserved
fact-finder,
intent,
knowledge,
such as
or motive:
explained
As was
Federal
Loan
Corp.
Sav. &
Ins.
Williams,
(D.Md.1984),
F.Supp.
summary
judg
ment
generally
appropriate
concerning
for issues
motive,
knowledge,
or intent
concerning
“the facts
because
knowledge
conduct,
the defendant’s
circum
existed,
they
any
stances which
as
aswell
determinations
of how they
legal
relate to the
...
standard
are
left for
best
resolution
the trier of fact at trial.” Id.
e.g.
at 1213. See
1329,
Gypsum,
Stern v. United States
Inc.
F.2d
(7th Cir.1977)(“Summary judgment
particularly
motions are
inappropriate
which
judge subjective
vehicles
consid
motive, intent,
also,
as
knowledge.”).
erations such
See
Staren v. American National Bank and Trust Company of
(7th
Cir.1976);
529 F.2d
Chicago,
1261-62
Conrad v.
Lines, Inc.,
(7th
Delta
Cir.1974);
Air
494 F.2d
Firstbrook,
(2d
Schoenbaum v.
Cir.1968),
405 F.2d
*12
denied,
Schoenbaum,
cert.
Manley
906,
v.
395 U.S.
89 S.Ct.
1747,
(1969).
III. Discussion claim, To negligence succeed on a a plaintiff must “ ‘(1) prove four well-established elements: that the defendant (2) duty was to protect plaintiff under a from injury, (3) the defendant that duty, breached plaintiff suf loss, (4) injury fered actual and that the loss injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of ” Todd, duty.’ 155, 373 Md. at 816 A.2d at (quoting 933 447, Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, 486, 370 Md. (2002) 372, 805 A.2d 395 (quoting Inc., v. Valentine On Target, 536 (1999) 544, 549, 947, (quoting 727 A.2d 949 BG & E v. Md. 307, (1995)))).
Lane,
34, 43,
338 Md.
656 A.2d
Because
duty
requires
legal
to
party
one
owed
another
whether
rules,
statutes,
prece
and
principles,
on
determination based
dents,
jury
than the
ordinarily
it is
for the court rather
(“[T]he
549,
Valentine,
Md.
(1986))). on our evaluation present
The resolution of the matter turns negligence duty first two and breach. Ms. elements: Hemmings argues the Landlord’s more involves doors, working apartment locks on as the providing than maintains, suggested. Instead, ruling Circuit she Court’s to prevent must maintain the areas under its control Landlord upon a tenant within the unit. She attack that, among allegations, claims other the Landlord controlled lighting and failed to maintain the exterior located within the common areas. Landlord that it owed Mr. counters no criminal act “it had control
Hemmings from the because no any aspect example, according over of the break-in.” For Landlord, day-to-day it “did have control over the apartment’s locks,” “only Hemmings could utilize the out provided keep devices them to crime of their it did home.” The Landlord further contends that not breach any had “no Hemmings owed to Mr. because it notice *13 in, of, any or any inadequacy defect measures place” Hemmings were in the time of the incident.
A. a property When landlord has but has not leased it, parted portion control with a of we have held may landlord liable for a injury a foreseeable caused or dangerous known defective condition located within the part of over landlord property which the retained control. in highlight, As our discussion will of a these landlord (1) on depends cases of three existence circumstances: condition; (2) or dangerous landlord controlled the defective knowledge knowledge had or landlord should have had (3) condition; injury causing the harm was a suffered of that foreseeable result condition.
A control premises always over conditions its factor determining has been a critical that we consider in liability. Judge recently landlord for Eldridge, speaking Assoc., majority of the Court Matthews Amberwood 544, 557, 119, 125 (1998), Md. tradition described our premises al emphasis cases the land addressing dangerous lord’s control over defective condition: running through many common thread our [A] cases involving circumstances in which landlords been have held (ie., areas, pre-existing liable common conditions defective premises, in the leased under landlord contract which the agree rectify the landlord shall defective condition) ability degree is the landlord’s to exercise a dangerous control over defective or condition and to prevent steps injuries arising take therefrom.
Conversely, when a has control turned over tenant, premises ordinarily obligation leased it no has premises safety maintain the leased of the tenant. See Matthews, (“The 556-57, 351 Md. at A.2d at 125 principal general rationale for rule that the landlord is ordinari ly for injuries dangerous liable caused conditions defects the leased is that the landlord ‘has parted with
538
689,
”)
Price,
687,
v.
161
162 Md.
(quoting
control.’
Marshall
172,
(1932));
Gardens,
Odell,
Inc. v.
227 Md.
A.
172
Elmar
(“Mere
(1962)
454, 457,
263,
ownership
A.2d
265
of land or
177
for
sus-
buildings
injuries
the
liable
does
render
owner
rightfully
on the
for
by
premises,
tained
tenants
invitees
of such
but
persons
the owner is not
insurer
owes them the
ordinary
to render
only to exercise
care
the
safe.”); Marshall,
689,
162
at
A. at 172
reasonably
Md.
161
(“The
that,
with
parted
law is well settled
when the owner has
a
tenant has
burden of
premises],
his control
leased
the
[of
keeping
premises,
of the
in the absence of an
proper
contrary;
any
and
agreement to the
for
nuisance created
responsible.”).
is not
the landlord
Matthews,
Eldridge
In
included “common areas”
Judge
among
portions
property
a landlord’s
which it
over
retains control. This
to “common
relates to
reference
areas”
separate
of a
portions
situations “where
landlord leases
and
property to different
his control
tenants
reserves under
halls, stairways,
portions
and
property
other
used in
Gardens, Inc.,
common
all tenants.” Elmar
227 Md. at
Cohn,
24,
457,
265 (citing Landay
177 A.2d at
v.
220 Md.
150
(1959)).
situations,
A.2d
In
have
land
required
739
such
we
ordinary
diligence
care
maintain
lords
“exercise
reasonably
in a
safe condition.” Langley
[common areas]
Lund,
402, 407, 199
620,
v.
234
Apartments
Park
Md.
A.2d
623
(1964).
Court, thus,
liability
“This
has
for
sustained landlord
injuries that occur in common
within
areas
the landlord’s
control
it can
shown that
landlord knew or had
where
danger
Wagman,
reason to know
existed.” Shields
(1998).
675, 714
Md.
A.2d
duty of a
in
applied
We have
this
landlord
cases which a
injury has
within
common
For
tenant’s
occurred
areas.
example,
dangerous
is liable
we have held that
landlord
for
within
physical
or defective
conditions
common areas when the
landlord
of the condition.
Langley
Apts.,
knew
See
Park
409-10,
at
at 624.
Langley
Apts.,
Md.
A.2d
Park
injuries
she
on an
slipped
icy
tenant suffered
when
fell
walkway
common areas
the landlord’s
403-04,
complex.
Id.
By
areas,
virtue
its control over the common
a landlord
must
keep
exercise reasonable care to
tenant
only
safe not
dangerous
conditions,
from known
physical
defective
such
icy
walkways,
as
common
but also from
certain
acts
v, Watson,
within
committed
the common areas. Scott
160, 169,
548,
A.2d,
Scott,
Md.
554. In
surviving
a tenant’s
claimed,
child
in
United
States District Court for the
of Maryland,
District
that the
duty
landlord had breached a
“to
from
parties
[the tenant]
criminal acts of third
committed in
common areas within
control.” Id. at
their
A.2d
at 549-50. The District Court certified and we
questions
answered
regarding
aspects
various
of a landlord’s
duty
where a
had
party
been murdered
a third
in
apartment building.
the common
areas
answering
we found that the landlord to tenant
question,
one certified
“special relationship”
was not the sort of
relationship
tort,
such
gives
“special duty”
rise to a
as that
166-67,
relationship.
Id.
passenger
common carrier to
therefore,
declined,
“special
to impose
A.2d at 552-53. We
against
...
landlord
duty
upon
protect [its]
tenants
premis-
on the
perpetrated
parties
crimes
landlord’s
Nevertheless,
recognized
A.2d at
Id. at
we
es.”
general principles
negligence require
a landlord
com-
safety”
“exercise
care for the tenant’s
reasonable
167,
If the or should of criminal areas, against property in the common he then persons measures, has a to take reasonable in view of the circumstances, existing the conditions contribut- eliminate ing think arises activity. to the criminal We *16 primarily existing from criminal activities on the landlord’s from activi- premises, knowledge general and not of criminal in neighborhood. ties the 169, determining in guidance
Id. at 359 A.2d at Por what duty, criminal rise we activity gives stated: injury can the risk to its [of Since the landlord affect ordinarily only only premises, tenants] within own [its] occurring premises, and of criminal acts on the landlord’s (and known which knows should have not those he neighborhood) in generally surrounding the con- occurring determining, particular stitute factors in relevant circumstances, which a landlord is the reasonable measures a duty keep premises under to take safe. duty -Knowledge establishing
Id. is essential to a landlord’s knowledge under a landlord has or should have Scott. Once knowledge criminal on has created condition, dangerous landlord must take reasonable mea- or, words, sures to eliminate in other correct the condition contributing activity. to the criminal knowledge
Besides control and
of a dangerous or
defective condition on
premises,
the landlord’s
our cases have
foreseeability
found
of harm to
important
be an
element in
establishing
that,
duty.
landlord’s
We stated Matthews
determining
duty
whether a
exists “where the risk created is
personal injury
one of
...
principal
duty
determination of
Matthews,
foreseeability.”
becomes
Applying this foreseeability element of requires examining harm caused against the criminal act the tenant. A obligates under Scott the landlord to take reasonable security measures eliminate harm that is fore- seeable, based nature the known criminal activity on premises. hand, On the if other harm not the sort of harm that a ordinary intelligence landlord of would associ- with that activity, ate does not attach. *17 case, In its opinion in this Special the Court of Appeals Scott, apply refused to our in holding reasoning that Scott “is controlling judice because the case sub involves an act that 542 within the leased but] within a common area [not
occurred
4, 797 A.2d at
Md.App.
at 317 n.
premises.” Hemmings,
Court, however, that Scott
Hemmings urges
n. 4.
Ms.
that a
because we have held
apply to the instant case
should
a tenant suffers
foreseeable
may
be liable when
by a landlord’s failure
injury
premises
in the leased
caused
safety in the common
for the tenant’s
use reasonable care
persuasive.
Hemmings’ argument
areas. We find Ms.
illustrate,
necessarily
a landlord is not
As two of our cases
within a
injury
occurs
from
because
tenant’s
immune
areas,
if an
than within common
premises, rather
leased
occu
adversely
area
affects
in the common
uncorrected defect
Inc.,
Ave.,
In 2310 Madison
premises.
of the leased
pants
399, 408-10,
209-
Md.
Bedding Mfg.,
Allied
(1956),
responsible
damage
for
a landlord
we held
damage
premises
in a
because the
property
leased
tenant’s
drain
condition of a water
from the known defective
resulted
landlord’s
all
and under the
age system common to
tenants
knowl
landlord’s control and
control. We underscored the
control,
landlord’s
condition. As to the
edge of the defective
was not
draining apparatus
appliance
we stated: “[The]
plaintiff.
occupation
in the
part
premises
of the demised
building.”
for
of the whole
something
It was
used
the benefit
also
convinced
at
Our in holdings 2310 Madison Ave. and Kinnier support proposition duty a landlord’s to maintain safe common areas is not preventing limited to harm occurs only Rather, within the common negligent areas. mainte of or nance failure to correct a known in defect areas under control of may the landlord result in for injuries follows, therefore, that occur within leased premises. It safety to for use reasonable care tenant’s within may the common areas apply injuries also to suffered from within premises. criminal acts the leased In other words, the fact that a criminal attack within occurred a leased apartment preclude unit not application does of the duties in set forth Scott. nevertheless, argues,
The Landlord
that the decision of the
Special
Court of
Appeals comports with
law
of other
jurisdictions.
contention,
In
support
only
this
it cites
one
case,
Inc.,
Management,
Cramer Balcor Property
312 S.C.
(1994).
Cramer,
Id. circumstances” Advance Rental place Centers do not Rather, injury focus on the where the tenant occurred. law, Maryland like under inquiry the central involves whether the landlord controlled the condition that contributed to the criminal activity. Maryland, Also like the cases in Advance Rental Centers does possible not limit landlord to crimes that occur outside the premises. leased duty precautions “to take minimal to when applied ... criminal conduct”
tenants from foreseeable inadequately tenant’s common areas were secured Point burglarized); Czerwinski v. Sunrise apartment was Condominium, 199, 200-01 So.2d a landlord owed (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989)(recognizing security against to criminal attack provide foreseeable unit). a her leased uf>on harm Having may apply determined Scott occurring within the leased as well as within areas, useful, point, it is at this what is common to summarize required provide to establish a landlord’s reasonable security legal duty A landlord to take measures. has security within common when: reasonable measures areas (1) knowledge knowledge had have the landlord should had (2) activity having place premises, taken on the criminal ordinary intelligence, based on the nature of the activity, have past criminal should foreseen the harm suffered.
B.
security
a landlord takes reasonable
measures
Once
to eliminate conditions
contribute
premises,
respect
all of its duties with
measures
those
necessarily. Rather,
has a
have
a landlord
not been fulfilled
obligation
properly carry
security
out the
mea
continuing
Scott,
171,
provides.
sures it
See
We believe measures provided, regularly the landlord has maintain and inspect implemented activity. the devices to deter criminal is, security provides That if the that devices require regular inspection proper maintenance or for them to function, ly must the landlord do what is reasonable to main or inspect obligation analogous tain the devices. This is to a ordinary diligence landlord’s to “exercise care and maintain in reasonably under its safe condi [areas control] 407, 199 tion.” 234 Md. at Langley, Page A.2d 623. See W. Keeton, (5th al., 63, ed., § et Prosser & Keeton on Torts at 440 1984) (“[A is ... obligation landlord] under affirmative inspect repair for protection [common areas] of the lessee.”). require
Other states also landlords to maintain their securi- ty Co., 653, measures. Walls v. Management 137 N.H. Oxford (1993) 103, 633 A.2d (recognizing that a landlord that provides lighting as a measure “for the of an exterior apartment building might failing be held liable insure lighting see, properly”); functioned e.g., Sharp v. Moore, Inc., (“A 297, 506, (1990) W.H. 118 Idaho 796 P.2d landlord, having voluntarily provided security system, potentially subject to if security system fails as a negligence.”); Dworman, result Lay (Okla.1986) P.2d (“[B]y retaining aspects control over such as door and window locks or alarm directly security, devices which relate to the landlord faces potential liability when the circumstances are such reasonable man would realize that a to act failure would relying susceptible render one on those actions to criminal acts.”); Merriam, (1984) Feld v. 506 Pa. (stating may expect that a voluntarily provided “program security] reasonably pursued [of will be and not fail exercise”). negligent due its *22 present show that the Landlord
The facts of the case provided lighting at Pelham Wood as exterior Thus, it had a activity. to deter criminal measure intended lighting. maintain that adequately
IV. Conclusion us, Circuit ruled that In the case before Court Hemmings solely by provid- any duty Landlord fulfilled to the ruling, was ing working patio lock on the door. The which orally, issued stated: mean, say hand get by
I I can’t the first tier. You on one obviously in. That that the intruder had to break means properly was secure and there were locks that place And if was and the door was secured. there worked in, it and didn’t that means the nothing wrong with he break in. particular in this case allowed the intruder Un- of theory, any duty I don’t see where there is der either any than that. I think go landlord to further the Court it Special Appeals will have to sort out. duty and analysis inaccurately
This described the Landlord’s insufficiently for de- contemplated the relevant considerations and, thereafter, termining whether the Landlord owed a analysis duty. appropriate believe the breached We facts in demands a closer examination the record Landlord its in this determine whether the breached case. THE APPEALS
JUDGMENT OF COURT OF SPECIAL REVERSED; REMANDED THAT CASE TO COURT THE TO REVERSE JUDGMENT WITH INSTRUCTIONS THE FOR COUNTY OF CIRCUIT COURT BALTIMORE THE THE COURT AND TO REMAND CASE TO CIRCUIT PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH FOR FURTHER OPINION; IN AND THE THIS COSTS THIS COURT BE PAID BY RE- OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO COURT SPONDENTS.
RAKER, J., CATHELL, J., dissenting, joined by HARRELL, J.
I judgment would affirm the the Circuit Court County judgment Special Baltimore and the the Court Wood, Appeals. Hemmings Md.App. See v. Pelham (2002). A.2d Special Appeals The Court of held that *23 duty landlord did not a protect owe to the tenant from activity by persons prem- committed third within the tenant, ises demised to the in which area the landlord was to longer agree. no able exert control. I Plaintiff, Hemmings, brought wrongful Suzette a death and alleging survival action lack of adequate security lighting and in premises and around the leased proximate as the cause of plaintiffs her husband’s death. complaint, second amended plaintiff alleged as follows:
¶ 13, 1998, 6. to Prior June complaints had been made notifying the Defendants of criminal in and around Apartments Pelham Wood of vulnerability and specific buildings up which to a back wooded which is area completely dark.
¶ 7. specific Defendants were of the vulnerability aware of 5 Lynfair on prior Court based criminal incursions into that building, required several of which response of the County Department. Baltimore Police ¶ 8. Defendants were aware had reason be aware and/or of the criminal activity in and around Apart- Pelham Wood ments had reason to dangerous be aware and/or conditions that existed.
¶ Despite the Defendants’ knowledge of the criminal activity and dangerous conditions that existed around Apartments and, Pelham Wood the Defendants’ ability steps to take safety premises ensure the tenants, its the Defendants did nothing to eliminate the danger safety enhance the of its tenants. wrongful
On the death and survival claim filed Ms. Hem- mings against landlord, her summary judgment in favor of the properly was entered by the Circuit Court because to state failed to establish sufficient evidence plaintiff part on the negligence. There is no
cause of action demised security premises within the provide landlord to from criminal violence the tenant to the tenant on the persons.1 Neither there perpetrated safety or its part of the landlord ensure tenants. present case concludes that “the facts majority
The provided lighting exterior Pelham show that the Landlord criminal activi- to deter as a measure intended Wood lighting.” maintain that Thus, adequately it ty. had majority to evidence from Although at 28. refers Maj. op. wall of a light was no fixture outside the tenants that there outside, very it dark there is apartment or that was particular in this that the Landlord re- absolutely no record evidence functioning. light that the was not complaint or notice ceived adequacy of door at the outset important It is note in this case. locks, “charley bars” is not at issue alarms or provisions from the lease majority quotes great detail *24 within the leasehold and the to locks on the doors related no sliding glass door. The record reflects charley bar on the spouse or her to plaintiff-tenant from the decedent complaints inoperable locks were or defi- that the the landlord-defendant charley repair replacement. bar or or that the needed cient recognizing that there was See maj. op. Apparently at 2-6. security any problem with these de- absolutely no notice of so, abandons, vices, rightfully and these devices majority the part protect any duty as a for on the basis occurring apartment.2 within the from harm tenant summary proper majority recognizes and iterates the test for 1. The negligence judgment in a case is and that the existence Maj. op. at 12. also Grimes v. question law the court. See 114-15, (2001) Kennedy Krieger, 858-59 366 Md. J., (Raker, concurring). might if analysis well be different 2. The and the result this case retaining liability control over was the landlord basis for the landlord’s any particularly and aspects premises and the locks of the demised ¶ 7 important to note that of the rules devices. It alarm - majority opinion upon The basis of the entire rests inade- building. quate lighting apartment in the rear of the The majority provided holds because landlord exterior lighting security at Pelham Wood as a intended to measure activity, it to adequately deter criminal had a maintain lighting. maj. op. From See maintain area, adequate in the lighting majority common makes the unjustified logic leap that somehow the landlord is then responsible activity for violent criminal that occurred within common premises and not within demised area.3
It has in this long been the law State that there is no general duty from person another crime. That rule applies ordinary relationship to the between landlord and regulations restricting changing installing of the lease from permission additional on the locks doors without landlord's written
is not at in this case. issue Where the landlord insists on control over devices, changing maintaining decisions as locks or permission given has been withheld or tenant has notice and responded, may injury landlord has the result if different occurs. Many recognized “by retaining aspects courts have control over as door such and window locks or alarm devices which directly security, potential liability relate to faces when the such circumstances are that a reasonable man would realize that a relying failure susceptible to act would render one on those actions Lay Dworman, (Okla.1986). criminal acts.” 732 P.2d The found complaint Oklahoma court that a stated a cause action for injury to a tenant which apartment occurred within the leased where the landlord retained over exclusive control the door locks and the reported tenant had the broken Id. at lock. 458-59. The court found that: principles appear “These form foundation for the landlord's jurisdictions involving in other in cases acts within premises. foreseeability rented element of in these cases has history been found from of criminal in the *25 complex building, strictly or or from the nature of defect in premises.” Id. at 459. theory plaintiff's majority’s Under the reasoning, solely and the it is "adequate” lighting the lack of liability. which forms the basis Following majority's reasoning, lighting adequate the lack of could liability place, form the basis of in the first as well failure to as adequately existing lighting. maintain
tenant, although duty may special a exist under circumstances. (1976) Watson, 160, 166, A.2d 278 Md. See Scott imposed special duty upon there is no (holding against protect perpetrated landlord to his tenants crimes premises). In the absence of third on the landlord’s parties duty relationship, protect is no special or there statute Id., general A.2d rule is harm. at 552. The another from protect or other .duty persons that the landlord’s tenants parties of property from the criminal acts third leased reasonably is a foreseeable risk of does not arise unless there Acts, Annot., Liability harm. Landlord Criminal See (1996). 207, 406-08, The A.L.R. 5th 436-39 commentators note follows: annotation as obligated protect a is question whether “The parties third is a against criminal of tenants activities general of as to a specific facet the more issue whether duty private protect against a person under another and in general principle, criminal conduct. As a the absence ... a special relationships of or of or circumstances statutes duty to a private person protect has no from another a person, assault or willful act of of criminal a violence duty but from criminal attack protect that the another contract, is, if may voluntarily it the law assumed recognize duty.... will enforce such Traditionally, have found that the mere of courts relation and does general landlord and tenant falls within the rule impose upon the landlord against ordinarily of third reason- parties, activities ing injuries damages that the of landlord for predicated from resulting such activities must' be either upon statutory of obligation, the breach a contractual or circumstances, upon foreseeability, under the criminal occurrence.”
Id. at 241. persons
A safety landlord is not insurer of within matter, premises, or for that in the common areas demised landlord is property. protect against reasonably care to known or fore- reasonable
553 A is to required precautions risks. landlord not take seeable persons third which against by criminal conduct committed anticipate. landlord has no Nor is landlord the reason the responsible by for attacks that are not caused the case, instant it is action or inaction. clear that the plaintiff provide landlord did not with owe her would inhibit or lighting discourage break-ins third parties apartment. into her plaintiff majority’s theory potential
The that there is liability arising from of duty by a breach the landlord because light either back landlord undertook area and failed lighting properly, light to maintain the or never undertook to so, persuasive. the back area and it should have is not done majority’s theory Nor single light is the in rear of apartment building placed was for there the landlord plaintiff security purposes. The has shown that anything reasonably landlord did that could be as considered having voluntarily provide protection undertaken to from activity by parties criminal within the premises. leased in light The one the rear cannot building be construed voluntary undertaking provide as a security within the apartments; a provide lighting failure to the rear cannot, not, complex and has been considered as State impose injuries basis to occurring within the premises. demised Even if the did provide landlord illumina area, tion in the common “the furnishing lighting outside commonplace by virtually and furnished every every in a facility tenant such as is involved here. It cannot reasonably regarded as the of a assumption protect against Lombard, criminal v. acts.” Rowe State Bank 125 203, 519, (1988). Ill.2d 1358, Ill.Dec. 531 N.E.2d majority primarily
The relies on the cases of Matthews Amberwood, (1998) Scott, 351 Md. 719 A.2d 119 Md. A.2d supports holding 548.4 Neither case Matthews, joined majority I and still believe that was case Matthews, properly. logical decided If is the this case then extension Judges join I (Judge would Cathell and Harrell to overrule Matthews. duty to from landlord has a premises. within the demised Scott, Md. at 359 A.2d at majority relies on *27 duty as for its conclusion that a exists. Scott is support court, appellate present in the
inapposite. The intermediate case, plaintiffs was to pointed inapposite out that Scott claim: princi- as it
“We Scott Watson establishes the basic cite regard duty with to the owed ples Maryland of law or In protecting safety landlord in of his her tenant. Scott, however, Appeals presented of was with the Court com- issue of whether the landlord an urban acts of plex duty protect had a to tenants from the criminal the land- third in common areas within parties committed ultimately duty control. concluded that lord’s The Court only if landlord had imposed would be on the landlord activity criminal and if knowledge of increased Scott, however, thereby were unsafe. is not con- rendered judice sub an act that trolling because the case involves premises. this to occurred within the leased We deem be overriding an distinction.” 4,n. at 317 855 n. 4.
Hemmings,
Md.App.
area,
of a
in
Scott involved the murder
the common
tenant
garage.
Maryland Uni-
underground parking
Under the
Act, Maryland"
of Questions
form Certification
of Law
Code
(1974,
RepLVol.),
through
§
§
12-601
12-613 of
Article,
Proceedings
Maryland
Courts and Judicial
Rule
“[wjhether
8-305,
duty
imposed
is
this Court considered
his
from criminal acts of
upon
the landlord
tenants
parties
knowledge
increasing
where
has
criminal
he
decided.)
Harrell was not a member of this Court when Matthews was
view,
my
the outcome in Matthews was controlled
the fact that the
animal,
landlord,
dangerous
known to the
in viola-
harbored
agreement
tion of
lease
between the landlord and the tenant and
ability
activity
within the
thus within the landlord’s
control
premises.
demised
activity
premises,
or in
neighborhood.”
the immediate
Scott,
“The of the landlord exercise reasonable care safety his in tenants common areas under his control is sufficiently applied involving flexible to cases criminal making without the landlord an of his insurer safety. knows, know, If tenant’s the landlord or should activity against persons criminal in property the common areas, measures, he then has a to take reasonable circumstances, existing view of the condi- eliminate the contributing tions activity. the criminal think We primarily arises from existing criminal activities on the premises, knowledge general from criminal neighborhood. Every activities person society subject personal to the risk of injury property damage from activity, both inside and outside his abode. obviously The risk varies with the time and locale. *28 Since the landlord can affect only the risk within his own premises, ordinarily only criminal acts occurring on the premises, landlord’s and of which he knows or should have (and known occurring not those generally in the surround- ing neighborhood) constitute relevant factors in determin- ing, particular circumstances, in the the reasonable mea- sures which a landlord is under a keep take to the premises safe.” (first
Id. at added). A.2d at 554 and third emphases Scott does not proposition stand the that the landlord is responsible for personal injury to a tenant as the result of that occurs within premises the under control of the tenant and outside of common the areas.5 provides support
Matthews no plaintiff. for the In Mat- thews, a child, sixteen-month-old the son of a guest social majority 5. The restates Hemmings' argument and embraces Ms. “that apply Scott should to the instant case because we have held that a may be liable when injury a tenant suffers a foreseeable in the premises by leased caused a landlord’s failure to use reasonable care safety for the tenant's in Maj. the common op. areas.” at 21. Ms. Hemmings’ premise wrong. injury is Scott dealt with in the common Hemmings area holding. and Ms. misstates the tenant, pit host’s bull. The was killed the particular pets prohibited were provided tenant’s lease in an pit question bull was held that premises. We within the tenant’s dangerous condition extremely presence control over the the landlord retained and that in pet” “no clause premises by virtue dog in the leased Matthews, at 125. Md. at We the lease. said: retention the lease not hold that a landlord’s do
“We
particular matters
the leased
control over
some
alone,
impose
duty upon
is,
a sufficient basis
standing
This
guest
premises.
is owed to a
on the
landlord which
whether
employed balancing
test
determine
Court has
particular
imposed
care should be
duty of reasonable
whether
‘[U]ltimately, the determination of
circumstances.
various
by weighing
is made
imposed
be
should
reaching
a conclusion
considerations
policy
not,
are,
legal protec-
or are
entitled
plaintiffs interests
In the instant
conduct of the defendant.’
against
tion
that need
case,
policy
various
considerations
understanding that a tenant
general
weighed are the
sanctity
premises and the
in control of the leased
primarily
as
home,
ability generally to do
including her
of a tenant’s
thereof, against
public
privacy
sees fit within the
she
to harbor
permitting
same tenant
safety concerns
foreseeably endanger
that will
extremely dangerous animal
premis-
the walls of the leased
individuals inside and outside
landlord, the
maintained
es,
degree of control
condition, and the
dangerous
knowledge
*29
We,
condition.
like the
ability to abate the
landlord’s
liability
addressing this issue
majority
[landlord’s
of courts
states,
balance
believe
for
bull
other
pit
attacks]
imposing
duty
of
struck on the side
should be
guests
premises.”
on the
landlord which is owed
(Citations omitted).
565-66,
Some have based on a theory, tion express landlord’s arises from an or implied promise provide security. e.g., Phillips See v. 122, Chicago Housing 281, 89 Ill.2d Authority, 59 Ill.Dec. 1038, (1982) N.E.2d (citing Nelson v. Union Wire Rope 69, 769, (1964)). Corp., Ill.2d 199 N.E.2d 324A Section (Second) (1965) of the Restatement of Torts states as follows: undertakes, “One who gratuitously consideration, or for render services to recognize another which he should as necessary protection for the person things, or his subject liability person physical to the third harm resulting from his failure exercise reasonable care to undertaking, his if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk harm, of such
(b) has perform he undertaken to a duty owed the other person, to the third
(c) the harm is suffered because of reliance the other or third person upon undertaking.” (c) “[wjhere interpreted Section has been to mean that other, reliance or of person, the third has induced him forego precautions against risk, other remedies or such a the harm results from negligence fully as as if the actor had created the risk.” See Pippin Chicago Housing Au 78 Ill.2d thority, 35 Ill.Dec. 399 N.E.2d (1979) (Second) e). (quoting § Restatement of Torts 324A cmt. relying upon 324A, § Without explicitly majority appears to find a part on the landlord’s upon based the landlord having provided lighting for outdoor in the common area and the failure to maintain lighting. maj. op. See at 28. question whether a provision give tenants, measures can to rise for harm to within *30 558 maintain from a failure to that results premises,
the demised Other impression first the State. is one of those measures See, varying -with results. question, states have addressed 653, 103, Co., A.2d 137 N.H. Mgmt. v. e.g., Walls Oxford (1993) (“[A] undertakes, gratu- either landlord who 106-07 security will thereafter have contract, provide itously byor Moore, care.”); v. W.H. Sharp a to act with reasonable (“A (1990) landlord, 506, 297, Inc., 796 P.2d 118 Idaho system, potentially security a having voluntarily provided security system fails as a result of the liability if subject to Merriam, 506 Pa. Feld v. negligence.”); landlord’s (“[A] (1984) ... incur may a 742, 747 A.2d keep if to attract voluntarily by specific agreement see, security.”). e.g. But of provides program he a tenants Inc., 323 Ark. 913 S.W.2d Rental Mgmt., Hall v. “modest, (1996) of implementation landlord’s (holding that a evening pa- safety lighting, such as measures” conscientious regarding suspicious trols, with residents and communication activities, [the landlord] to such level “do not rise attacks its tenants from criminal assumed parties”). security fea- duty to maintain where the In several states liability premises gives rise to the demised tures external tenants, is limited to the extent duty imposed for harm to Walls, 633 A.2d at undertaken. See security measures (“A Feld, may rely upon 107; at 747 expectations only within the reasonable protection program that a landlord will defeat expect cannot program. He however, expect, can that the designs felonry. He all the fail to its reasonably pursued and not due will be program exercise.”). Corp., Newman In Funchess Cecil negligent (Minn.2001), Supreme Court of Minnesota 632 N.W.2d noted: discour- a rule would
“We are not inclined establish security. Transforming improving from age landlords security into a gratuitous provision measures subjecting the land- duty to maintain those measures all harm occasioned a failure to lord discourage would maintain tend landlords instituting security being from measures for fear held a criminal. This liable for the actions of limitation *31 duty to maintain measures us to extent of the leads any duty might is not conclude have had [the landlord] give Haynes’ of to to death.” type the rise Id. at 675. held, policy, that it is generally public
Courts have based on impose duty not to upon fair to the landlord a the tenant from criminal within See the demised area. Sweetser, (1994); Ark. Bartley v. 319 890 252 S.W.2d Tenant, Schoshinski, R. American Law Landlord and of (1980). reason for the rule has stated as follows: been “ tamper con- ‘Judicial reluctance to with the common law
cept relationship, of the landlord-tenant the notion that the person act of third in or committing a an intentional tort ...; superseding crime is a cause of harm to another foreseeability difficult of problem determining often times of acts; criminal vagueness of standard which the meet; consequences landlord must of the economic of imposition duty; public policy conflict with allocating duty protecting of from criminal acts citizens ” to government private rather than sector.’ Id. Kline (quoting v. 1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment (D.C.Cir.1970)). Corp., 439 F.2d Although Court willing law, has changes been consider to the common static, recognizing that the law is not the other set reasons forth persuasive. Professor Schoshinski view are This is (Second) § consistent with the Restatement of Torts (1965),which reads as follows: act of a third person committing
“The
tort
intentional
is a superseding
resulting
crime
cause of harm to another
therefrom, although
negligent
the actor’s
conduct
a
created
situation which
an opportunity
afforded
to the
person
third
crime,
such a tort
commit
unless the actor at the time
negligent
his
conduct realized or should have realized the
created,
might
likelihood
such a situation
that a
might
opportunity
avail himself of the
person
commit such a tort or crime.”
Thus, foreseeability
primary
of harm the
basis for
of a risk
is
but,
whether
duty,
question
simply
is
imposing
foreseeable,
duty
is
but whether
exists
event
Plaza,
it.
guard against
Dodge
take
See Smith
measures
(2002). Al
335, 346-55,
881, 888-93
Md.App.
is
plaintiffs injury
important
of a
though
foreseeability
exists,
of a
the imposition
whether
determination
As
depend upon foreseeability
Dean
does not
alone.
stated,
‘duty
is not
recognized
Prosser
should be
“[I]t
itself,
only an
total
expression
but is
the sum
sacrosanct
say that
which lead the law to
policy
those considerations
on
plaintiff
protection.”
Prosser and Keeton
entitled
(5th ed.1984).
depends
§
Torts
Whether a
exists
*32
of
relationship
parties,
of
consideration
the likelihood
risk,
in the
public
of
and nature of the
injury
interest
solution,
it,
to
and the
proposed
guard against
burden
consequences
placing
upon
that burden
See
defendant.6
Exxon,
(1994);
58, 77,
180,
v.
335 Md.
189
Rosenblatt
617, 627-28,
County,
Anne
Md.
510
Ashburn v.
Arundel
306
Plaza,
(1986).
1078,
Writing
panel Dodge
A.2d
1083
for the
out in
Judge Rodowsky
balancing approach
set
applied
Matthews,
risk is
to a
compared
“under which the foreseeable
factors,
ability
including
number
‘the landlord’s
to abate the
”
Plaza,
351,
A.2d at
Dodge
Md.App.
condition.’
148
811
129).
Matthews,
566,
(quoting
891
“
necessary
‘The basic elements
for
cause of action
negligence
obligation
“are a
is
which the defendant
protect plaintiff
discharge
from injury,
under
a failure to
duty,
injury
plaintiff proxi-
and actual loss or
’
Watson,
mately resulting from that
Scott v.
failure.”
160, 165,
Md.
7. The “the this secure” in context means the areas, premises. not the common demised The 317-18, A.2d at 855. Md.App. Hemmings, concluded: Special Appeals Court con- a fact finder would presented, facts “From the showing that no there could be conclude that strained was the areas maintain the common failure appellees’ grant Consequently, of the fatal event. cause proximate proper.” was summary judgment the Court agree I with 323-24, A.2d at 859. Id. at affirm. and would Special-Appeals Judge Cathell dissent. respectfully I Accordingly, they join state that me to have authorized Judge Harrell dissenting opinion. HARRELL, CATHELL, in which J. Dissenting opinion joins. J. v. in Matthews in the dissents stated
For the reasons Inc., 351 Md. Partnership, Limited Associates Amberwood present case. (1998), in the I also dissent A.2d 119 view, landlord an insurer makes a my now majority, in that he to state authorizes me Judge Harrell against crime. joins in this dissent. THE TREASURY OF
COMPTROLLER A. KOLZIG. Olaf Term, 127, Sept. No. Maryland. Appeals Court 16, 2003. June