Trentacost v. Brussel

Nеw Jersey, we hold that regardless presence of even unreasonable “regulatory lag,” a newly filed may tariff not be given except retroactive effect purpose for the of refund men- tioned above. See In re Rates, Intrastate Industrial Sand N.J. at In re N. J. Light Co., Power & 15 N.J. at 92-93. present case, In the the Water Company gave no notice and, as conceded on argument, oral never put intended to proposed tariff into effect until the Board’s decision. Without such intention, notice of its it is not entitled to implement its proposal Moreover, even provisionally. we hold that its newly filed tariff may given not be retroactive effect. judgmеnt Appellate Division is reversed. There is pending

still question resolution a concerning an expense item for federal income taxes. us, Since this issue is not before our holding does not disturb Appellate Division’s remand to the Board for recalculation.

For reversal —Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SULLI- VAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER and HANDLER —6.

For affirmance —None. TRENTACOST, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, FLORENCE v. DR. BRUSSEL, NATHAN T. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Argued September 1979—Decided March 1980. (Klein, appellant the cause for argued Herbert C. Klein Chester, Henkoff, Henkoff on Greenburg attorneys; & Isaac brief). (Philip M. respondent cause for argued the Aprile J.

Gregory attorney). Saginario, was delivered opinion Court

PASHMAN, J. the contours of the again this is asked to examine

Once Court their tenants.1 residential landlords and relationship between provides whether a landlord who Specifically, question premises may be for common areas of rental inadequate security upon assault a tenant. failing prevent liable for a criminal upon jury’s judgment for the tenant The trial court entered 164 N.J. Appellate Division affirmed. damages. award of petition for granted We defendant’s Super. (App.Div.1978). 9 (1975); Corp., Berzito v. 68 N.J. 368 Terrace v. Overlook 1See Braitman Ireland, (1970); Gambino, Coleman 56 N.J. (1973); 130 Marini v. 63 N.J. 460 Newark, Housing Goldberg N.J. Auth. of (1969); 38 Steinberg, v. v. 54 N.J. 58 Inc., (1973); Skyline Apartments, Dwyer 63 N.J. 577 v. (1962); also 578 see Housing Auth. N.J.Super. (App.Div.1973); affg Mayer 48 123 o. b. N.J.Super. (App.Div.1964). (1965), aff'g 411 Jersey City, o. b. 84 44 N.J. 567 certification, (1979), N.J. to consider whether the landlord obligated was to secure the entrance to the common areas of plaintiff’s building. We now affirm.

I

Facts 21, 1973, On the afternoon of plaintiff December Florence Trentacost, apartment Street, returned to her at 273 Monroe Passaic, New from Jersey, shopping. an afternoon of After she had building top entered her and reached flight the of a of stairs leading apartment, grabbed to her someone her ankles from attacker, dragged behind and her down the stairs. Her who unknown, remains left her bleeding ground floor hallway but returned almost immediately purse. to steal her Conscious yet speak, unable to she lay helpless for several minutes until a leaving building tenant neighbor noticed her. Another then police, called the who plaintiff nearby hospital. took to a Mrs. Trentacost hospitalized days. injuries was Her shoulder, included a right dislocated fractures of the left shoul- der, jaw, left ankle and lacerations about the mouth and broken teeth. She wore casts on her leg arms and for about a month half, and a and at the time of trial in late 1976 still suffered pain from and loss of mobility. attack,

At the plaintiff time of the years was 61 old and a widow. apartment She had rented her four-room for more than defendant, years ten from Dr. Nathan building T. Brussel. The eight consisted of dwelling units located over street ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍level stores provided by with access front and rear entrances. A padlock entrance, secured the back but there was no lock on the front door, plaintiff which both and apparently her assailant had used premises. to enter the

There was considerable evidence at regarding trial criminal suspicious activity other in the vicinity plaintiff’s resi- dence. A Passaic city detective years testified that in the three preceding incident, police investigated had from 75 to mostly burglaries and street neighborhood, 100 crimes in the that Another stated “civil disturbances” muggings. policeman 1969 and Two months had occurred in the areа between 1971. to attacked, reported she was Mrs. Trentacost had herself before At building’s into the cellar. attempt an to break defendant of presence landlord the times she had notified the other the hallways. claimed persons in the Plaintiff unauthorized door, install a lock on the but promised had to front defendant on discussing subject prior the to the assault he denied ever plaintiff. evidence, close of plaintiff’s

At the the trial granted court motion to strike contributory negligence. the defense the judge jury part instructed as follows: exercising guard A landlord owes to his tenants the reasonable care to duty against dangers arising foreseеable from the use of in connection with premises * * * those which remain within the landlord’s The rela- control. portions between a not landlord and his tenant does the landlord the tionship impose upon to tenant from the crime of third protect persons. Only upon proper that the landlord the enhanced risk of the criminal proof unreasonably activity failing safeguard to take reasonable measures to the tenants from foreseea- showing existing ble criminal conduct and a of suitable notice of defects to the damages landlord can a tenant recover from his landlord. $3,000, plaintiff the jury a verdict for After returned notwith- judgment motion fоr trial court denied defendant’s to When defendant refused standing the verdict. R. 4:40-2. $15,000, granted plaintiff’s the court to an additur of consent damages. jury found new A second motion for a trial as $25,000. appealed. then in the Defendant damages sum of provide obligation landlord’s discussing the of the In extent found tenants, Appellate Division measures his security 68 N.J. 368 Corp., Terrace v. Overlook decision Braitman our According to N.J.Super. 14. (1975), controlling. to be simply was in Braitman court, keynote of the decision “[t]he upon properly posited was landlord liability negligence concepts.” evidence, familiar Examining Id. the the support court concluded there was sufficiеnt finding that the absence of a lock on the building, entrance to the which was high-crime neighborhood, located in a created a foreseeable risk of harm jury to tenants. It was therefore a question whether the landlord had failed to security take reasonable measures to protect the Rejecting tenants. Id. at 16. defendant’s other arguments regarding sufficiency the admissibility of evi- dence, Appellate the Division affirmed.2

II Liability for Foreseeable Criminal Conduct Appellate correctly recognized, As the Division sup- Braitman plies the point controversy regarding focal the landlord’s duty. property In that the tenants had suffered loss case a resulting from theft because of defective “dead bolt” lock on apartment the 68 N.J. at 371-372. The door. See trial court remaining slip provided adequate found that the lock had not security and that the landlord had received sufficient notice of robbery defective dead lock. Id. at 373. was Since scope within the of the foreseeable by risks created the inade- quate security, the court negli- found the landlord liable for gence.

After the Appellate Division judgment affirmed for the ten ants, 132 N.J.Super. 51 (App.Div.1974), this Court examined in detail the various evolving theories concerning responsibil ities of a landlord. We began by noting the traditional rule: relationshiр between “[T]he a landlord and not, his tenant does more, without impose upon the landlord a duty protect tenant from the crime persons.” of third 68 N.J. (cita- at 374 grant certification, 2In express view of opinion our limited we no as to arguments these other Appellate raised defendant in the Division. however, omitted). on, with approval tions We went to cite Apartment Corp., Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Ave. 141 U.S. 370, App.D.C. (D.C.Cir.1970), case in leading 439 F.2d 477 as the away the trend from that tradition.

In fashioning provide security, tenant the court first, described as “the upon Kline drew three sources. The itself,” logic of the 439 F.2d at was the situation id. recognition position that the landlord was a better economic measures. Thе court precautionary than the tenant to take Id. liability. for the landlord’s tort adopted predicate this as a 377, Relying existing on law in the District at at 484. 439 F.2d Columbia, implied as a source an of the court noted second undertaking protective to maintain those measures contractual 378, 439 at the of the lease term. Id. at F.2d beginning effect governing innkeeper’s A was the law an 485. third source thought this doctrine guests. duties towards his The court provided appropriate analogy a more than that of a medieval modern urban agrarian predecessor formal of the lease —the obligations. determining residential lease —for the landlord’s 375, 378, 482, v. First id. at 439 F.2d аt see also Javins See 375-377, 369, U.S.App.D.C. 428 F.2d Realty Corp., Nat’l 138 925, den., 1071, (D.C.Cir.1970), 400 91 S.Ct. 1077-1079 cert. U.S. 186, a foun (1970). provided 27 185 These three bases L.Ed.2d maintain common enlarging the landlord’s to dation for safeguard tenants from fore premises areas of rental so as to Kline, parties. third 141 U.S. seeable criminal conduct of 380, at 487. App.D.C. at 439 F.2d not em- Braitman did majority of the Court in Although a Braitman, Kline, at 387-388 68 N.J. reasoning of see brace the Pashman, JJ.), J., we and Hughes, C. (separate views Sullivan land- judicial to allow acknowledge developing “a reluctance did for liability to their tenants lords to insulate themselves from 222 parties,” of third id. at 378.3 We then criminal conduct negligence development liability

turned fоreseeable Jersey. “upon criminal logical conduct in New We held law,” extension case principles our own a landlord “unreasonably creating could be held liable for an enhanced” resulting risk of loss from criminal Id. at foreseeable conduct. Whelan, 432, N.J.Super. 382-383. v. (App. See Zinck 120 445 Braitman, Div.1972). was As here the landlord confronted high with the of a crime in the neighborhood, existence level of see ante at Yet he a lock 218-219. failed to install on the front building’s By failing any door leading lobby. in to to do thing to or even reduce the risk of criminal his arrest harm to tenants, the landlord effectively unreasonably enhanced Braitman, that risk. See N.J. at 381-382. holding in Brаitman lies well our reiterate that

We negligence “Negligence law. principles within traditional time person at the reasonably prudent tested whether an unreasonable risk or recognize and foresee place should Nichols, danger Rappaport or others.” likelihood of harm 188, person would reasonably prudent ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍If the (1959). 31 N.J. acts, voluntary, criminal resulting from another’s danger foresee control beyond actions defendant’s the fact that another’s are Yaskin, N.J. liability. Hill v. preclude not does Auth., Housing N.J. Goldberg v. (1977); 143-145 Newark Co., H.R.R.R. 91 N.J.L. (1962); v. New York & 588 Brower C. Inc., Co., Trucks, 190, (E 1918); Reading Mack Inc. v. 193 A& Whelan, Zinck 387, v. (App.Div.1977); 395-398 N.J.Super. 148 538, 445; Fox, N.J.Super. 50 ay at Genov N.J.Super. 120 grounds, 29 N.J. 436 rev’d on other (App.Div.1958), 550-551 3We also after which were trend. E. part noted cases decided Kline this 1974); g., (Ct.App. Warner v. 210 350 John Arnold, 174, 133 S.E.2d Ga.App. (Sup. 1972); ston v. 198 409 Ct. Sherman v. Harris, 569, 387 Mich. N.W.2d (App.Div.1975); 47 239 see 134, Concourse A.D.2d 365 N. Y.S.2d Realty Corp., Braitman, 68 at 376-378. N.J. (1959). Harpell v. Transport, Cf. Public Service Coordinated 309, (1956); Inc., N.J. 316-317 Corporation, Menth v. Breeze 428, harm, (1950). N.J. 441-442 Foreseeability of not the fact of intervention, another’s is the crucial factor in determining guard “whether a against exists to take measures activity].” Goldberg, 38 N.J. at 583. [criminal Application of principles these in Braitman led to the imposition liability for a provide landlord’s failure to ade quate security against foreseeable criminal conduct. See Brait man, 378-381; Kline, 68 N.J. at see U.S.App.D.C. also 374-376, 439 Harris, F.2d at Johnston v. 387 Mich. 481 — 574-575, (Sup.Ct.1972). 198 N.W.2d 410-411 They also support plaintiff’s judgment present affirmance of in the case. ample There was activity affecting evidence that criminal the building Monroe was reasonably Street foreseeable. More than high one witness testified to the incidence of crime in the own, neighborhood. unchallenged testimony Plaintiff’s related an attempted building. Against theft within the this' back ground, readily the could view absence of lock on jury front entrance —an area outside an individual tenant’s control— as exemplifying disregard safety a callous for the residents’ ordinary violation of standards of care. Since there was suffi cient concluding mugging evidence for that the was a foreseea ble negligence, jury’s finding result of the landlord’s liability was warranted.

Ill Theories of Liability Landlord Although go judgment we need no further to affirm the tenant, we choose not ignore the alternative theories of landlord liability majority discussed in Braitman. A of regulation Court found that a violation of an administrative governing multiple dwellings independent the condition of was 385-386, negligence, evidence of 68 N.J. at while members two conclusively, id. at negligence that breach to establish considered Schreiber, JJ., members concurring). Three and (Clifford premises imposing liability for unsafe possibility raised warranty habitability. Id. at implied based on the landlord’s Pashman, J., Hughes, C. Sullivan (separate views of 387-388 on a covenant liability mention of based JJ.). There was also (Clifford Id. at 389 adequate security. implied in fact to furnish JJ., Schreiber, concurring). Braitman. since we decided passed years four have Over judicial guidance regarding the need During period this Note, “The 1975- generally grown. has liability landlord Term,” 30 Rut.L.Rev. Court Jersey Supreme 1976 New reconcile the alternative Although we need not (1977). 696-702 case, take this we nevertheless to resolve of Braitman theories landlord’s scope of a residential clarify the opportunity to this with the keeping is in approach This duty to his tenant. by this adjudication followed of common-law practice traditional Weintraub: of Chief Justice the statement We recall Court. go what is mandate that a court not is no constitutional may beyond [T]here with Whether an issue will be dealt to decide a case at hand. necessary including judge’s things, calls for a evaluation of or many narrowly expansively general guidance agencies government or the the need for for the bar or existing doctrines, doubts To that the Court end, express upon public. may inviting litigation, itself raise an issue it thinks should be or thereby may not decide issues which need resolved in the or interest, may deliberately public is warranted. 63 N.J. Levine, be decidеd when it believes that course [Busik (1973)] (1973), L.Ed.2d 733 831, 38 94 S.Ct. dism., U.S. 351, 363-364 app. spirit In the judicial philosophy, of this we conclude that it is necessary general principle reconsider “the the mere relationship imposes of landlord and tenant no on the Braitman, safeguard landlord to the tenant from crime.” N.J. at 387.

225 A Habitability Warranty of Implied principles of recognized that traditional long has This Court lease, a residential law, the context of applied when property and economic dwelling habits changes in behind “lagged have 379, Inc., 382 Brookchester, 26 N.J. v. Michaels realities.” real conveyances of of the character (1958). acquired Leases the rela- govеrn to function was primary when their property original, and farmers.4 Unlike landowners tionship between rents not for dweller tenant, apartment the modern medieval for shelter. profit but shelter, present- providing engaged in the business

When walls, a floor and a merely four do not furnish day landlords expect, now supply, to and tenants ceiling. They have come today consists of a apartment of a home. An physical requisites minimum, the necessities of services. At variety goods ventilation, heat and residence include sufficient a habitable proper security and light, plumbing and sanitation and adequate 387; Ireland, Braitman, N.J. at Marini v. maintenance. 68 See 372, Javins, 130, 144 U.S.App.D.C. at (1970); see also 138 56 N.J. 616, 624-625, Ct., 10 Superior v. Cal.3d 428 F.2d at Green 704, 1168, 1173, (Sup.Ct.1974); King Cal.Rptr. 111 709 517 P.2d Thus, Moorehead, 65, (Mo.Ct.App.1973). 495 70 v. S.W.2d “[t]he letting” indicate subject matter and circumstances undertaking provide residen object” of a landlord’s “very quarters with suitable is “to furnish the premises tial [tenant] Marini, 143. living 56 N.J. at purposes.” undertaking receives little assist- Complete satisfaction of this marketplace. ance from the forces of the There is no doubt that chronic, desperate New has been faced with a need for Jersey 4See, Years,” g., McGovern, Conception e. 23 of a Lease for “The Historical (1976). U.C.L.A.Rev. 501 226 Lee, Fort 62 N.J. Inganamort v. Bor. of housing.

rental Tp. v. 521, (1973); Burlington Cty. see NAACP 527 also South dism., 808, 151, (1975), apр. 96 Laurel, 423 U.S. Mt. 67 N.J. urbanization, 18, (1975). Increasing popula- 46 L.Ed.2d 28 S.Ct. construction costs have contributed growth tion and inflated “inequality bargaining shortage, thereby creating an this Corp. Realty Reste between landlord and tenant.” power Javins, (1969); U.S.App.D.C., see Cooper, 53 N.J. result, understanding prevailing F.2d at 1079. As a expres- a lease has not found regarding the nature of residential agreements lease are explicit sion in contractual terms. Because adhesion, they cannot be relied frequently form contracts of genuine “meeting of the minds” with upon represent a The tenant therefore respect responsibilities. to the landlord’s for fair treat- legitimate present-day demands cannot realize his Realty, in the Reste 53 N.J. at 454. ment economic forum. See maintaining minimum conditions of undisputed It is that tenant’s including security, beyond is an individual habitability, areas of a multi- Where the task involves the common control. entirely precluded. efforts are ple-dwelling building, tenants’ 382; Michaels, Savings Dubonowski v. Howard 26 N.J. at Institution, (E 1940). highly A in 368 & Nor this N.J.L. required to invest substantial society mobile should tenants be improvements might tenancy. outlast their sums however, landlord, the cost of maintenance over an spread ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍can among enjoying all residents its bene- period extended of time fits. incen “greater opportunity, the landlord’s Recognizing * * * maintain,” inspect and Green v. сapacity

tive and 627, 1175, Superior Ct., Cal.Rptr. at 517 P.2d at 10 Cal.3d bargaining power, this as well as the tenant’s lack of Court expectations give legitimate has effect to the endeavored to tenancy. our which characterize the modern residential Since Ireland, imposed upon landlord decision Marini v. we have from his eco- implied warranty habitability which an ^arises nomic relationship and social with his tenants.5 The scope of to all warranty this extends “facilities vital to the use of the Marini, premises purposes.” for residential 56 N.J. at 144. A warranty gives right breach of the the tenant the to deduct the repairs facility reasonable cost of to a vital monthly from his rent, right id. at and of aсtion for the return or reduction Berzito, of rent. 63 N.J. at see also N.J.S.A. 2A:42-85 et seq. (permitting deposit an action for court of rents where dwelling units fail to meet “minimum safety standards of sanitation”). premises” are the

Among the “facilities vital to use of the provisions security. Unfortunately, the tenant’s crime person property inescapable is an of modern against fact life. Its threatens the enclave as well as presence suburban expect inner Tenants effective means of city. universally some excluding multiple dwellings; intruders from without a mini- well-being precarious they mum of their is as as if had security, Recognizing no heat or sanitation. that a safer and morе secure livable, apartment truly frequently supe- is more landlords offer protective entering rior measures an inducement for into as conditions, premium agreements. living modern an lease Under apartment provides unless it a reasonable clearly not habitable risk of criminal security measure of from the intrusion. In Braitman we considered but to resolve wheth declined implied warranty enough encompass appro- er the is “flexible to varying majority 5in now the formulations, this is rule implied warranty Javins, Green, g., Breeden, supra Lemle v. the United See, ; States. e. supra; Little, Spring, 1969); 51 Hawaii (Sup.Ct. Jack Inc. v. 426, 462 P.2d 470 50 Fox, 1972); (Sup.Ct. (Iowa Ill.2d 351, 280 N.E.2d 208 Mease v. 200 N.W.2d 791 Housing Hemmingway, 1972); Boston Auth. v. 363 Mass. 184, 293 Sup.Ct. Moorhead, supra; Bumes, King (Sup.Jud.Ct. 1973); v. Kline v. N.E.2d 831 111 Velez, Realty Corp. (Sup.Ct.1971); N.H. Morbeth v. 87, 276 A.2d 248 73 (N.Y.C.Civ.Ct.1973); Foisy Wyman, v. Misc.2d 996, N.Y.S.2d 406 Holmes, Pugh 1973); (Sup.Ct. Wash.2d 515 P.2d 160 486 Pa. (Sup.Ct.1979). A.2d 897 devices.” 68 N.J. at 388 priate security (separate opinion of J., Pashman, JJ.). Hughes, C. We now conclude Sullivan implied warranty that it is and therefore hold that the landlord’s habitability obliges safeguards of him to furnish reasonable to protect activity premis- tenants from foreseeable criminal on the es. “premises” necessarily which the landlord must secure

encompass multiple dwellings. the common areas of There is no charged by portion doubt that the rent a landlord includes a for maintaining such areas are used all areas. That these Viewing tenants require “premises” does not a different result. dwelling as units would restricted to the individual render purposes assessing common areas a of “no man’s land” for provision habitability. We consider the of some measure of security premises.” in these areas to “vital to the use of the be case,

Examining the facts of this we find that defend ant implied warranty by failing breached his to secure in any way building. the front entrance of the The absence of even a simple slip elementary safeguards permitted lock—the most — the halls and stairwells to virtually public ways, become com pletely accessible to the criminal element. Defendant did noth ing to protect against the threat оf crime which seriously impaired quality building. of residential life in his Since the implied undertaking provide adequate security landlord’s to independently risks, exists knowledge any his there no is prove need to notice of such a defective and unsafe condition to establish duty. enough the landlord’s contractual It defendant did not take measures which were in fact reasonable maintaining a habitable residence.

By failing provide adequate security, the landlord has impaired habitability apartment. tenant’s He has therefore breached his implied warranty habitability and is injuries liable the tenant for the attributable to that breach.

B Regulations of Administrative Violations implied doctrine of an to the By applying warranty landlords, judiciary Jersey joins activities of in New other in government recognizing legitimate branches of that the inter- expectations ests articu- fully and of residential tenants are not Perceiving of a “a critical by agreement. lated the terms lease * * * tenants, shortage housing trapped and that [rental] fact, being exploited,” Inganamort are v. Bor. of Fort Lee, 62 N.J. many governments adopted local have rent prevent unregulated control ordinances to economic forces from depriving Legislature’s their citizens of decent shelter. The dwellings concern with habitability rental еxtends over three-quarters century, beginning of a in 1904 with the enact- L.1904, Act, 61, Comp.Stat. ment of the Tenement House c. amendments, see, (1910). Through its e. 5321-5355 all successive g., seq. (1937), “compre- et it constitute R.S. 55:1—1 has come to habitation, it legislation hensive intended to assure safe places Legislature where the has concluded it responsibility Michaels, 26 the landlord. N.J. at see belongs” —with Braitman, 68 N.J. at 383 & n.10. the Tenement Michaels, the effect of

In this Court considered held that the liability. tort We upon Act the landlord’s House merely not cover imposed by the statute did duty repair parts may “such as building, or apartment common areas of an * * control, actual, fictional. attenuated or be in the landlord’s parts’ ‘all good repair Rather the to maintain embracefd] 386-387. The provide[d].” 26 N.J. at the landlord in fact which as estab- injunction of the statute the broad interpreted Court a cause of action landlords and standard of conduct for lishing a Id. at 386. negligence its violation. the Hotel superceded by House Act was The Tenement 1967, L.1967, e. Safety Law Dwelling Health and Multiple Law, Multiple Dwelling Hotel and N.J.S.A. now known as the more provides stronger The new act and seq. 55:13A-1 et protection of measures than the former statute for the detailed Braitman, 55:13A-2. 68 N.J. at N.J.S.A. tenants. See delegation power of to the significant Legislature’s Most is the Community promulgate Affairs to com- of State Cоmmissioner concerning the condition of prehensive regulations and detailed delegation This en- multiple dwelling. 55:13A-7. N.J.S.A. responsibility assuring of with the “de- trusts the commissioner cent, housing throughout the state. standard and safe” rental requires regulations that the cover 55:13A-2. The law N.J.S.A. ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍components building. of a N.J. separate, enumerated rep- 55:13A-7(a)-(v). specifications” “standards and These S.A. given the safe- expert judgment commissioner’s that resent the health, necessary safety to the and guards “reasonably are * * * any occupants occupants welfare of the or intended dwelling.” regulations 55:13A-7. The there- multiple N.J.S.A. law, 55:13A-7, -9(a), see fore define with the force of N.J.S.A. “multiplе safety habitability the minimum standards for and 55:13A-3(k) (defining “multiple dwell- dwellings.” N.J.S.A. 55:13A-9(b). ings”). See N.J.S.A. we of a In Braitman noted that “the violation statuto * * negligence the issue of

ry duty care not conclusive on but it is a which the trier of fact should consider in circumstance assessing liability.” entirely appropriate N.J. at 385. It is liability an action to establish civil to consider the landlord’s statutory responsibilities and administrative to his tenants to we in Mi- premises. furnish habitable residential As stated Braitman, chaels, reiterated in 68 N.J. at 26 N.J. at and 383-386, regulatory governing scheme statutory dwellings establishes a standard of habitability multifamily for landlords. It is thus available as evidence for conduct determining duty owed landlords to tenants. Defеnd- building “multiple dwelling” subject was a eight-unit ant’s 602.3(f)(2)(i) regulations.6 Regulation requirements of the the Construction and Maintenance “Regulations 19,1968, July Multiple Dwellings” provided effective Motels shall be “[bjuilding doors and exterior exit doors entrance a lock at with lock sets.”7 absence of equipped heavy Legis- contrary of Mrs. Trentacost’s assault was to the the time clearly estab- standard of care. the violation was lature’s Since negligence. it of lished constitutes evidence defendant’s IV

Conclusion We have presented been with the opportunity to delineate the responsibilities of residential landlords for the living conditions Changes their tenants. in the social economic environ- ment have caused the character of that responsibility to evolve origin from its in medieval property Although law. ishe not an insurer of his safety, tenants’ a landlord is definitely no mere bystander. Kline, 141 U.S.App.D.C. at F.2d 481. All three government branches of recognized have develop- this ment, and expressed have varying ways the of a new content landlord-tenant paramount estate. Its concern is with health safety. Accordingly, the expense making involved in dwelling secure and habitable does not diminish the landlord’s responsibility. analysis

Our has led the conclusion that a has a landlord legal duty to take reasonable security measures for tenant protection on premises. the obligation His to provide safe and “multiple dwelling” “in 6The statute defines to include all which structures * ** dwelling space occupied three more units of are or more or three 55:13A-3(k). persons independently who live of each other.” N.J.S.A. amended, 5:10-19.6(c)(2). regulation present compiled 7As the at N.J.A.C. multiple dwelling regulations The set of is set entire current forth at N.J.A.C. seq. ef 5:10-1.1 potential liability on alternative premises gives habitable rise to implied warranty the negligence and grounds of conventional protect theories will serve habitability. Together these in a man- the individual tenant precarious positiоn of otherwise conceptions public policy. consistent with modern ner reasons, Appellate judgment foregoing For the Division is affirmed.

SCHREIBER, J., concurring. presented granting in our order certifica- question

The narrow part “whether there was a on the tion this case is opened a lock for the which into the provide landlord to door on the building common access area of the where the attack affirmatively based on a tenant occurred.” I would answer theory. traditional tort Multiple Hotel and declared that Legislature has re- Law, seq. “being et ... 55:13A-1

Dwelling N.J.S.A. the health and necessary protection for the of legislation medial in to assure the of this оrder welfare of the residents State decent, dwelling and safe units therefor of standard provision purposes and to effectuate the liberally be construed space, shall underlying policy That was 55:13A-2. intent thereof.” N.J.S.A. adopt- Affairs Community when the Commissioner furthered perti- in 605.3(f)(2),1 provided which regulation ed N.J.A.C. 5:10— part: nent regulation subsequently 5:10-19.- was amended. See N.J.A.C. 1This

6(c)(2)(i). buildings all following to shall apply provisions Security Requirements —The residential occupan- in be classified heretofor or hereafter erected may [s/e] Existing buildings group shall with the of this L-2. requirements comply cy regulations. two after the effective date of these within Section years (i) doors shall be Building and other exterior exit equipped entrance doors in the inside sets. Latch sets shall have stop-work with lock heavy duty of main entrance master Outside controlled a cylinders by key only. cylinder shall not be to the tenant’s which keyed door locks shall be key, operated by door locks entrance door. Main entrance the tenant’s also apartment open from the inside locked and shall be freely openable shall be in the position kept and exit doors shall be locked to entry all times. Other exterior prevent from the inside at all times. shall be freely openable law, 55:13A-6(e) N.J.S.A. regulation, having the effect of This 5:10-1.7, a standаrd of conduct and N.J.A.C. prescribed dwellings (buildings with three or more multiple owners of 55:13A-3(k)) N.J.S.A. units, respect part with to a housing may A tenant have a the landlord’s control. premises under landlord to negligence for failure of the cause of action in Weintraub wrote in Chief Justice comply with that standard. Brookchester, Inc., (1958), referring v. 26 N.J. to Michaels seq., 55:1-1 et Act, predeces- N.J.S.A. the Tenement House Dwelling Law: Multiple sor of the Hotel injured of a one reason a suit by not authorize Our statute does expressly of action as that a cause hence does not create statutory landlord’s violation and statutes of usual with our approach Rather, harmony tеrm is understood. and to conduct, a standard permit is deemed to establish this the act kind, in a negligent meet that standard failure to intended beneficiaries rely upon A.1914); (E. 196 & negligence. v. 86 N.J.L. Davis, Evers law action for common 102). (7 at 386] N.J. Brunton, [Id. Daniels supra Michaels equally applicable here. enunciated principle rely upon any I find no need to search for or other doctrine to Braitman v. Overlook respond question to the certified. Schreiber, Corp., Terrace 68 N.J. (1975) (Clifford JJ., concurring).

234 opinion. joins

Justice in this CLIFFORD CLIFFORD, J., dissenting part. prompted agreement with my

The sense of conviction which Corp., 68 N.J. Justice Braitman v. Overlook Terrace Schreiber 368, (1975) (concurring opinion), remains undiminished time, events, I any development or in landlord-tenant law. fully join concurring opinion today. in his therefore addition, opportunity disagreement I to register In take this imposed liability with the notion that can be on the defendant landlord on the theory implied warranty habitability. Emphasizing growing presence society of crime in the Court implied today warranty declares that “the landlord’s of habita- protect him bility obliges safeguards to furnish reasonable premises”, from activity tenants foreseeable criminal on the “[sjince undertaking indepen- ante at and that exists [this] risks, dently knowledge any there no landlord’s] [the notice Ante prove need of a defеctive unsafe condition.” at 228. I life are all too well-known.

The harsh realities of modern application majority’s with them. But novel concern share habitability to conditions implied warranty of the baleful of the is unwarranted and ill-advised. See reflected in those realities 387-88; Apart Braitman, Dwyer Skyline v. supra, 68 N.J. at N.J. ments, (App.Div.), o. b. 63 N.J.Super. 54-56 aff’d. Fraknoi, 470, 330 v. 69 Misc.2d N.Y.S. (1973). also Hall See predi exercise (Civ.Ct.N.Y.1972). practical In effect this 2d 637 ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍the relation liability solely upon cates what amounts to absolute notions of upon and tenant loose ship between landlord duty here should In view the existence of a foreseeability. my special relationship between grounded simply on a not be particular circumstances from the parties but rather should arise Braitman, case, supra; foreseeability. See including Co., (1966); Dwyer, 48 N.J. 75-76 Caputzal Lindsay v. The (1962). Authority, 38 Goldberg Housing N.J. supra; also Apartment Corp., Kline 1500 Massachusetts Avenue 370, 374-377, U.S.App.D.C. (D.C.Cir.1970); 439 F.2d 481-84 Christian, 108, 113, 561, 564, Rowland v. Cal.2d 443 P.2d 97, 100 Cal.Rptr. (1968). Clearly the inquiry must involve a fair balancing of the parties, relative interests of the the nature of risk, public and the interest proposed in the solution. Gold berg, supra, 38 N.J. at This process 583. has been well served in past through the application princi negligence traditional ples. perceive I compelling departing no reason for from that practice.

SCHREIBER, J., concurring in the result. CLIFFORD, J., concurring in dissenting the result and part.

For affirmance Justice —Chief WILENTZ and Justices SUL- LIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK —7.

For reversal —None.

Case Details

Case Name: Trentacost v. Brussel

Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date Published: Mar 12, 1980

Citation: 412 A.2d 436

Court Abbreviation: N.J.