Phillips v. Chicago Housing Authority

• Decision Date: 04 December 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-1898,79-1898
• Citation: 47 Ill.Dec. 17,414 N.E.2d 1133,91 Ill.App.3d 544
• Parties: , 47 Ill.Dec. 17 Eliza PHILLIPS, Administrator of the Estate of Debra Phillips, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1133

414 N.E.2d 1133

91 Ill.App.3d 544, 47 Ill.Dec. 17

Eliza PHILLIPS, Administrator of the Estate of Debra Phillips, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY, a Municipal Corporation Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79-1898.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Dec. 4, 1980.

Epton, Mullin, Segal & Druth, Ltd., Chicago (Abraham W. Brussell, Edward J. McCambridge, Mary F. Stafford, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Orner, Wasserman & Moore, Chicago (Norton Wasserman, H. Elisabeth Huber, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

ROMITI, Justice:

The plaintiff's decedent, an inhabitant of a Chicago Housing Authority property, was abducted, taken to a vacant floor in the building, raped and murdered. The plaintiff sued, contending that the Housing Authority was negligent in not properly sealing off the floor. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice concluding that a good cause of action was not stated since the Housing Authority has no duty to protect its tenants from criminal assaults by third parties.

We reverse.

The plaintiff, Eliza Phillips, alleged in her complaint in part that:

1. Debra Phillips, the deceased, a minor, was a resident of 1119 North Cleveland, part of the Cabrini Green Housing Project, a public housing development consisting of approximately 78 buildings with 3,573 units owned, operated, maintained and controlled by the Chicago Housing Authority;

2. at the time of Debra's death and for a long time prior thereto numerous incidents of crimes of extreme violence had occurred and taken place on the premises in question in the possession and control of the defendant. These crimes include homicides of all degrees, aggravated assault, rape of adults and minors. These crimes were committed against the tenants and their families and also against their guests, invitees and licensees. In particular, crimes of rape of female minors had taken place in the specific premises of the secured room locked herein;

3. at all times mentioned herein, the defendant knew or by exercise of due care and caution should have known of the existence of these crimes;

4. at some time prior to April 2, 1977 the Chicago Housing Authority closed and locked off certain floors of the aforementioned building and locked the floors to prevent criminals that they knew or in exercise of due care and caution should have known of from entering these floors to conduct their criminal activities and to keep the premises safe for the tenants of the building;

5. on April 2, 1977 Debra was abducted by persons unknown and raped, assaulted and taken to and beaten on one of the floors allegedly secured and was thrown out of one of the windows of said floor, with fatal results;

6. at the aforesaid time and place the Chicago Housing Authority negligently and carelessly committed one or more of the following acts:

(a) kept the keys to the closed off floors in an area or place that was known to or accessible to the general public or to those criminal persons that the Chicago Housing Authority knew or should have known came on to the premises;

(b) left the keys to the elevator allowing travel to the closed off floors accessible to the general public and to those criminals that the Chicago Housing Authority knew or should have known came on to the premises;

(c) failed to inspect the elevator to determine if it had been prevented from stopping at the closed off floors;

(d) failed to inspect the doors to the closed off area to determine if the locks were working so as to bar access to the closed off area;

(e) failed to inspect the elevator to determine if the elevator lock preventing it from going to the closed off floors was working;

(f) failed to warn the tenants that the doors to the closed off areas were in fact unsecured and accessible to the public and to those criminal persons who the Chicago Housing Authority knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been known came on to the premises;

(g) failed to warn the tenants that the elevator was not locked and closed off to the floors which were being remodeled and accessible to the general public and to those criminals who the Chicago Housing Authority knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known came on to the premises;

(h) failed to provide police protection or security guards in the building although defendant had provided police protection by furnishing security guards for some of the other buildings in the Cabrini Green Project.

7. as a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid negligent acts of the defendant, Debra was abducted, taken to the closed off area, assaulted, beaten, raped and thrown out of a window.

The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Courts in several states, extending the duty of innkeepers to landlords, have found a landlord liable for failing to exercise reasonable care in rendering the premises safe from criminal activity. (See for example, Kline v. 1500 Mass. Ave. Apartment Corp. (1970), 141 U.S.App.D.C. 370, 439 F.2d 477; Trentacost v. Brussel (1980), 82 N.J. 214, 412 A.2d 436; Annot., 43 A.L.R.3d 331; Stalmack, "The Illinois Landlord's Obligation to Protect Persons on His Premises Against the Criminal Activities of Third Persons" 1980 Illinois Bar Journal 668.) Illinois, while recognizing that innkeepers owe to their guests a high degree of care to protect them against assaults by third persons (Mrzlak v. Ettinger (1975), 25 Ill.App.3d 706, 323 N.E.2d 796; Danile v. Oak Park Arms Hotel, Inc. (1964), 55 Ill.App.2d 2, 203 N.E.2d 706, leave to appeal denied; Fortney v. Hotel Rancroft, Inc. (1955), 5 Ill.App.2d 327, 125 N.E.2d 544), has refused to extend this duty to landlords. Thus the Illinois Supreme Court in Pippin v. Chicago Housing Authority (1979), 78 Ill.2d 204, 399 N.E.2d 596, 35 Ill.Dec. 530 held that the Chicago Housing Authority did not owe a duty either at common law or by virtue of statute to protect a tenant from criminal acts.

Three exceptions, however, exist to this general rule. The landlord may be liable to the tenant if the injury although due to criminal activity occurred because of a condition of the premises. (Stribling v. Chicago Housing Authority (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 551, 340 N.E.2d 47, leave to appeal denied, and compare Smith v. Chicago Housing Authority (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 967, 344 N.E.2d 536.) In addition the landlord may be liable if it attempts to safeguard the premises but does so negligently (Pippin v. Chicago Housing Authority (1979), 78 Ill.2d 204, 399 N.E.2d 596, 35 Ill.Dec. 530), or if by his acts he creates a hazard which did not previously exist. Cross v. Wells Fargo Alarm Services (1980), 82 Ill.2d 313, 412 N.E.2d 472, 45 Ill.Dec. 121.

In Stribling v. Chicago Housing Authority (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 551, 340 N.E.2d 47, leave to appeal denied the plaintiffs sued to recover for losses due to burglaries which took place because of the Housing Authority's failure to secure two vacant apartments adjacent to the plaintiffs' apartment on the east and west sides. The plaintiffs were burglarized three times; the first and third times, burglars entered their apartment by breaking a hole through the wall separating plaintiffs' apartment from the vacant apartment to the west; the second time the burglars entered...