Aisner v. Lafayette Towers, Docket No. 66146

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
• Citation: 129 Mich.App. 642,341 N.W.2d 852
• Docket Number: Docket No. 66146
• Parties: Celina AISNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAFAYETTE TOWERS, a Limited Partnership and Daniel E. Levin and Robert E. Johnson, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees. 129 Mich.App. 642, 341 N.W.2d 852
• Decision Date: 15 December 1983

Page 852

341 N.W.2d 852 Celina AISNER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAFAYETTE TOWERS, a Limited Partnership and Daniel E. Levin
and Robert E. Johnson, Jointly and Severally,
Defendants-Appellees. Docket No. 66146.
129 Mich.App. 642, 341 N.W.2d 852 Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted June 15, 1983.
Decided Oct. 11, 1983.
Released for Publication Dec. 15, 1983.

Page 853

[129 MICHAPP 644] Norman R. Robiner, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Holahan, Malloy, Maybaugh and Monnich by John R. Monnich, Troy, for defendants-appellees.

Before BRONSON, P.J., and T.M. BURNS and DEMING ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1) and (3).

Plaintiff was robbed and sexually assaulted in the parking lot of the Lafayette Towers apartment building on August 30, 1976, at approximately 9:30 p.m. At the time of the incident, plaintiff was on her way to visit a friend who was a tenant in the Lafayette Towers. Plaintiff commenced this negligence action alleging that defendants breached their duty to keep the premises, including the parking lot, in a reasonably safe condition and, specifically, that defendants were negligent in failing to provide sufficient lighting and security guards in the area of the parking lot. The complaint further alleged that defendants knew stringent security measures were required because (1) the apartment building was located in a high [129 MICHAPP 645] crime area, (2) two separate attacks on women had occurred in the immediate vicinity of the apartment building within the five days previous to the incident, and (3), prior to the incident, tenants of the Lafayette Towers had held meetings for the purpose of requesting better security measures in and around the building. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding, in effect, that defendants owed no duty because the Lafayette Towers was not a high crime area and, therefore, the risk to plaintiff was not foreseeable.

The Michigan Supreme Court has held that a landlord owes a duty to his tenants to protect them from unreasonable risks of harm resulting from the foreseeable criminal activities of third parties within the common areas of the landlord's premises. Johnston v. Harris, 387 Mich. 569, 198 N.W.2d 409 (1972); Samson v. Saginaw Professional Building, Inc., 393 Mich. 393, 224 N.W.2d 843 (1975). Stated otherwise, the landlord's duty to act arises where the risk...