Penner v. Falk
Decision Date | 28 March 1984 |
Citation | 200 Cal.Rptr. 661,153 Cal.App.3d 858 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Scott PENNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Joe FALK, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 69318. |
Fogel, Rothschild, Feldman & Ostrov, and J. Clark Aristei and Allan J. Favish, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.
Grace, Neumeyer & Otto, Inc., and Ilse A. Harle, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.
Scott Penner (herein appellant) appeals from a judgment (order of dismissal) entered February 23, 1983, after demurrer to his third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend.
In August 1980, appellant was a tenant in an apartment building. The apartment building was "owned, operated, managed, controlled, maintained, equipped, inspected, illuminated, supervised, guarded, [and] provided security for" by respondents.
On August 5, 1980, while he was on the premises, appellant "was accosted and assaulted by two (2) non-tenant intruders who were waiting in the common hallway of said premises." As a result of the robbery, burglary, false imprisonment, batteries, assaults and physical harm, appellant sustained injuries. In the first cause of action appellant sought both compensatory and punitive damages on a negligence theory. In the second cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability, appellant sought only compensatory damages.
The third amended complaint contained the following allegations:
become the victims of crimes on said premises, including criminal attacks; that it was reasonably foreseeable to anticipate future crimes against the tenants of said premises and their guests while on the premises; and that plaintiff would be exposed to the danger of a criminal attack upon his person and property on August 5, 1980, when he was a resident of an apartment designated as Apartment No. 2; that said crimes were encouraged, invited, and/or caused by the affirmative actions and/or failures to act of defendants, and each of them, with respect to their negligent ownership, management, control, maintenance, operation, equipping, inspection, illumination, supervision, and guarding of said apartment building, the supervision, and guarding of said apartment building, [sic] the approaches and entrances thereto, including the gates, doors, windows, locks, interior hallway illumination, hallways, vegetation and walkways. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the defendants, and each of them, had knowledge and/or reason to foresee that such conduct was foreseeable and likely to occur in the future, based upon a variety of statistics, reports, maps, charts, records and other information including, but not limited to their awareness of the following facts, among other things, all of which plaintiff alleges to be true, and all of which facts alleged were known or should have been known to defendants, and each of them, on and within two years prior to August 5, 1980:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nola M. v. University of Southern California
...799, 205 Cal.Rptr. 842, 685 P.2d 1193 [female college student assaulted in campus parking lot sued college]; Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 200 Cal.Rptr. 661 [tenant assaulted and robbed common hallway sued landlord]; Cohen v. Southland Corp. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 130, 203 Cal.Rp......
-
Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd.
...injury would hinge on the plaintiffs ability "to establish a history of crime at the parking lot"]; see also Penner v. Folk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 866-867, 200 Cal.Rptr. 661 [complaint sufficiently alleged landlord's awareness of violent crime on the premises].) By contrast, this case c......
-
Wylie v. Gresch
...could foresee that similar assaults would occur. (Kwaitkowski, supra, at pp. 328-329, 176 Cal.Rptr. 494.) In Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 200 Cal.Rptr. 661, plaintiff tenant was assaulted by two nontenants in a common hallway of his apartment building. (Id., at pp. 860-861, 200......
-
Zelig v. County of Los Angeles
...rely for inferring a contract involve the breach of the warranty of habitability implied in residential leases. (Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 869, 200 Cal.Rptr. 661; Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 324, 333, 176 Cal.Rptr. 494.)14 Of course, section 845......