Carmichael v. Colonial Square Apartments

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BOWMAN
• Citation: Carmichael v. Colonial Square Apartments, 38 Ohio App.3d 131, 528 N.E.2d 585 (Ohio App. 1987)
• Decision Date: 14 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86AP-819,86AP-819
• Parties: CARMICHAEL, Appellant, v. COLONIAL SQUARE APARTMENTS, Appellee, et al.

Page 131

38 Ohio App.3d 131

528 N.E.2d 585

CARMICHAEL, Appellant, v. COLONIAL SQUARE APARTMENTS, Appellee, et al.

No. 86AP-819.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

April 14, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

While the landlord has some duty to provide secure common areas in an apartment complex, he is not an insurer of the premises against criminal activity. The duty on the landlord is only to take some reasonable precautions to provide reasonable security.

Richard F. Swope, Reynoldsburg, for appellant.

Denmead, Blackburn & Willard, Robert Willard and Rosemary L. Sova, Columbus, for appellee.

BOWMAN, Judge.

In November 1984, appellant, Paul Carmichael, Sr., was a tenant in an apartment located in a multi-unit building at 1480 West Rich Street pursuant to a written lease with appellee, Colonial Square Apartments. Appellant's apartment was located on the second of three floors in the building. Entrance into appellant's apartment was from an interior common hallway. The door into appellant's apartment was equipped with a safety chain, lock, peephole and a dead bolt, and there was some lighting in the hallways. In August 1984, appellant was notified by appellee of its intent to install a security system of locked outside doors connected to an alarm and buzzer system that would require anyone not having a key for the building to have the front door released from inside the building. By November 1984, the side door locks had been installed but the buzzer system at the front door had not been installed.

At approximately 8:30 p.m., in November 1984, appellant was awakened by the sound of the doorbell and, thinking it was an elderly tenant across the hall who frequently requested his assistance, opened the door without looking through the peephole or securing the safety chain. At the time appellant started to open the door a shotgun was shoved between the door and the door frame, making it impossible for appellant to slam the door. The unknown intruder forced his way into the apartment and appellant was assaulted and robbed. The intruder gained entrance into appellant's apartment from the common hallway.

Appellant filed suit alleging that appellee was negligent by failing to provide security in the common areas of the building and failing to complete the installation of a planned security system, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of appellant's injuries. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was sustained by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

Appellant has appealed setting forth the following assignment of error:

"The trial court erred in sustaining defendant-appellee's motion for summary judgment as there are issues of material facts to be decided by the trier of facts and the defendant-appellee is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

In Keister v. Park Centre Lanes (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 19, 3 OBR 20, 443 N.E.2d 532, syllabus, the Court of Appeals for Stark County held:

"To defeat a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant in a negligence action, plaintiff must identify a duty, or duties, owed him by the defendant, and the evidence must be sufficient, considered most favorably to the plaintiff, to allow reasonable minds to infer that a specific duty was breached, that the breach of duty was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, and that plaintiff was injured."

In Sciascia v. Riverpark Apts. (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 164, 3 OBR 188, 444 N.E.2d 40, the issue was whether criminal activity in an apartment complex constituted a constructive eviction so as to relieve a tenant from the requirement of giving thirty days' notice prior to vacating the premises. This court held that in the absence of an express provision in a lease placing upon the landlord or the tenant a duty to provide security from criminal activity and where the landlord provides reasonable security measures, there is no constructive eviction of a tenant who is victimized by criminal activity. Id. at syllabus. This court further stated that while the landlord has some duty to provide secure common areas in an apartment complex, he is not an insurer of the premises against criminal activity. Id. at 166, 3 OBR at 190, 444 N.E.2d at 42. Thus, the duty on the landlord is only to take some reasonable precautions to provide reasonable security. In this instance, appellee did take reasonable precautions to provide for the tenant's security. Appellee was in the process of installing a security system for outside entrances into the building. Appellee had installed locks for outside doors, but had not yet completed installation of a "telephone" buzzer system. Appellant's individual apartment was equipped with two locks, a chain and peephole.

In Shroades v. Rental Homes (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 20, 22 O.O.3d 152, 427...