Czech v. Aspen Indus. Center

• Citation: 145 N.J.Super. 597,368 A.2d 938
• Parties: Sophie CZECH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASPEN INDUSTRIAL CENTER, a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
• Decision Date: 26 October 1976
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Page 597

145 N.J.Super. 597

368 A.2d 938

Sophie CZECH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASPEN INDUSTRIAL CENTER, a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Appellate Division.

Argued Oct. 12, 1976.

Decided Oct. 26, 1976.

Charles A. Becker, Jr., Ramsey, for plaintiff-appellant (Vaccaro, Osborne & Curran, Paramus, attorneys; Charles A. Becker, Jr., Ramsey, on the brief).

Isaac Henkoff, Upper Montclair, for defendant-respondent (Krieger & Klein, Passaic, attorneys; Isaac Henkoff, Upper Montclair, on the brief).

Before Judges CARTON, KOLE and LARNER.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff was mugged as she ascended the stairs leading to her place of employment. She instituted suit against defendant, the owner of a factory building in which her employer was a tenant, contending it had taken insufficient security measures for her protection. At the close of plaintiff's proofs the trial judge granted defendant's motion for judgment of dismissal, finding that the facts adduced presented no basis for liability.

The central issue on this appeal is whether the proofs presented by plaintiff, if true, and the legitimate inferences therefrom, considered most favorably to plaintiff, sufficed to establish a duty of the landlord of this factory building with respect to the safety of its tenant's employees. See R. 4:37--2(b); Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 5, 258 A.2d 706 (1969).

We hold that under the proofs there was no such duty. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

We need not determine whether the court below erred in not admitting evidence of crime statistics for the City of Passaic as a whole. There was no basis in the record, even if such city-wide crime statistics were considered, for imposing a duty on this owner of a factory building of taking additional security measures to protect its tenant's employees from the hazard of a criminal event such as that here involved.

The proofs were sparse.

Plaintiff arrived at work on September 15, 1972, at about 7:30 a.m. As usual, she found the only door she would use to enter the building unlocked. She entered and the door slammed behind her. She did not hear the door slam again. As she neared the top of the stairs to the second floor, she was grabbed from behind and was rendered unconscious as a result of an attack by an unknown person.

The first floor of the building contained a machine shop operated by defendant corporation. Its president was Michael Chinnici. At about the time that plaintiff entered the building Chinnici was in his place of business on the first floor making coffee when he heard moaning in the hallway. He opened a sliding door into the hallway from his shop and saw a man running out of the door. He gave chase but apparently could not catch the assailant. Returning to the stairway, he found plaintiff lying on the steps.

Chinnici had arrived at the building at 7:10 a.m. He had seen a floor lady for plaintiff's employer opening the door to the building. He maintained that he always locked the premises. Chinnici further stated that he had not employed any security guards during the 10 to 15 years that he had been at the factory location because he had felt no need to do so. Aside from locks on the doors and screens on the windows, no other security measures were taken.

A police officer testified that a federal housing project was near the factory building and that there...