Scott v. Watson
Decision Date | 13 July 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 5,5 |
Parties | Evelyn Ann SCOTT, etc., et al. v. E. John WATSON, etc., et al. Misc. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Alvin Dwight Pettit and Michael Bowen Mitchell, Baltimore (E. Thomas W. Stahl, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
Stanley B. Rohd, Baltimore (George D. Solter, Whiteford, Taylor, Preston, Trimble & Johnston, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE and ELDRIDGE, JJ.
This case has come to us from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Maryland Code (1974) Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, § 12-601 et seq.; that Act authorizes us to answer questions of state law certified by ( a )United States District Court 'which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears . . . there is no controlling precedent in the Court of Appeals of this state.'
Plaintiff Evelyn Ann Scott originally brought suit in the Superior Court of Baltimore City against the owners of the Sutton Place Apartments (the defendants), who removed the case to the federal court. She sued both as the surviving child of James Aubrey Scott, Jr., and in her capacity as personal representative of his estate. In her wrongful death and survivor's actions she claimed that the defendants had breached a duty owed to Scott as one of their tenants to protect him from criminal acts of third parties committed in common areas within their control, and that the breach of duty proximately caused Scott's death. In its order of certification, the District Court certified three questions of law, i. e.:
'(1) Does Maryland law impose upon the landlord of an urban apartment complex a duty to tenants to protect them from the criminal acts of third parties committed in common areas within the landlord's control and, if so, what is the extent of such duty?
'(2) If no such duty exists generally, would such a duty be imposed if the landlord has knowledge of increasing criminal activity on the premises or in the immediate neighborhood?
'(3) Would such a duty be imposed upon a landlord if such landlord has undertaken specific measures to protect his tenants from the criminal acts of third parties?'
The statement of relevant facts, as certified by the District Court, and to which we are limited, is as follows: 'Sutton Place Apartments, at 1111 Park Avenue in Baltimore City, was owned and operated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development until January 29, 1973, when it was purchased by Sutton Place Associates, a limited partnership whose general partners are the defendants in this action. Sutton Place is a multistory structure with a number of retail shops on the ground level and 290 apartment units occupying fifteen floors above ground. Common areas for the use of tenants include a lobby, halls, stairways, an underground parking garage, and two outdoor parking lots. Access to the underground parking garage is by means of sliding steel door activated by an electrocard device.
'On the evening of July 12-13, 1973, between the hours of 11:45 p. m. and 12:10 a. m., the plaintiff's decedent, James Aubrey Scott, Jr., a tenant at Sutton Place, was killed by the blast of a shotgun within several yards of his automobile in the apartment's underground parking garage. At the time of his death, Scott was facing trial in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland under a multicount indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute heroin. The police report indicates that there were scattered in the general area of Scott's body numerous sheets of paper with printed slogans stating 'Dope dealers are traitors, dope dealers must die.' Although there was a guard on the apartment premises at the time of the murder, the guard was unaware of the crime, and Scott's body was in fact discovered by a tenant approximately one and one-half hours after the crime was committed.
'When Sutton Place Associates purchased the apartment complex, the following security devices and procedures provided security to tenants and their invitees: (1) Two closed circuit television cameras monitored the basement of the building and the rear of the retail stores on the ground level; (2) A guard supplied by the Loughlin Security Agency, Inc. was on duty nightly from 10:00 p. m. to 6:00 a. m. and patrolled the premises four times each night, except that the outside grounds and garage area were patrolled only twice nightly; (3) A switchboard operator in the lobby monitored the television system and the main entrance to the building; and (4) At the main entrance was stationed a doorman who would park the car of any tenant wishing this done for him.
'In spite of these security precautions, Sutton Place tenants in the period before Scott's murder were apprehensive about the high incidence of crime in the surrounding neighborhood.
'At the time of the meeting of the Sutton Place Tenants Association held on February 20, 1973, three officers of that organization expressed their concern to the new owners, and particularly noted that only one doorman was on duty.
apartments, but none of the incidents involved personal injury to tenants. In addition, police reports indicate that the following occurred in or around the apartment premises during the three months immediately preceding Scott's death: (1) A car was stolen from either the undrground garage or lobby level garage on April 22, 1973; (2) Two persons were assaulted and robbed on a public street near the apartment by a person who had followed the victims out of one of the ground level shops, on April 23, 1973; (3) A tenant's apartment was burglarized between June 9 and June 11, 1973; (4) A vehicle owned by a Sutton Place resident was stolen from a public street near the apartment on June 17, 1973, and several days later the owner was informed by telephone that he could have his car back for a price; (5) A tenant's apartment was burglarized on June 24, 1973; and (6) One of the ground level stores open to the public was robbed and a store employee raped during the afternoon of July 2, 1973. However, before July 13, 1973, defendants had no knowledge that any tenant or invitee had been the victim of a crime involving physical harm or the threat of physical harm occurring in the underground garage or other common areas within the apartment building.
Shortly after they took over management of Sutton Place, defendants announced to tenants certain steps they planned to take to make the building more secure. Although all of the security measures planned had not been put into effect at the time of Scott's murder, defendants had taken certain additional steps to protect their tenants from crimes committed by third parties.'
Plaintiff Scott contends that the duty placed upon hotel owners and common carriers to protect patrons from criminal assaults should be extended to the landlordtenant relation in light of the 'changing relationships' between landlord and tenants in an urban luxury apartment setting. She relies primarily on Kline v. 1500 Mass. Ave. Apts., 141 U.S.App.D.C. 370, 439 F.2d 477 (1970). Absent such a general duty, she contends that Maryland should follow the rule of those jurisdictions which impose a protective duty upon the landlord if he had knowledge of increasing criminal activity on the premises or in the neighborhood, or had undertaken specific protective measures. The defendants, while admitting knowledge of criminal activity on the premises and in the neighborhood, and having increased security measures, argue that no such duty should be imposed upon them since it would result in the imposition of a standard of care incapable of definition and performance, citing Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of Newark, 38 N.J. 578, 186 A.2d 291 (1962).
(1)
The basic elements necessary for a cause of action is negligence 'are a duty or obligation which the defendant is under to protect plaintiff from injury, a failure to discharge that duty, and actual loss or injury to the plaintiff proximately resulting from that failure.' Peroit v. Williams, 258 Md. 663, 669, 267 A.2d 114, 118 (1970). We held in Macke Laundry Serv. Co. v. Weber, 267 Md. 426, 429-31, 298 A.2d 27 (1972), that a landlord who has set aside areas for the use of his tenants in common owes them the duty of reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe. In other words, mere ownership of buildings does not render the owner liable for injuries sustained by tenants since the landlord is not an insurer of such persons; rather, as we said in Elmar Gardens, Inc. v. Odell, 227 Md. 454, 457, 177 A.2d 263, 265 (1962), 'where a landlord leases separate portions of a property to different tenants and reserves under his control halls, stairways, and other portions of the property used in common by all tenants, he is only obliged to use reasonable diligence and ordinary care to keep the portion retained under his control in reasonably safe condition.'
While the Maryland cases recognizing this duty on the part...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn.
...802-803, 142 Cal.Rptr. 487; Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp. (D.C. Cir.1970) 439 F.2d 477, 480-481; Scott v. Watson (1976) 278 Md. 160, 359 A.2d 548, 552.) Two previous California decisions support our conclusion that a condominium association may properly be held to a lan......
-
Piechowicz v. US
...v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 510 A.2d 1078 (1986), Lamb v. Hopkins, 303 Md. 236, 492 A.2d 1297 (1983), and Scott v. Watson, 278 Md. 160, 359 A.2d 548 (1976) would have been ...
-
Ford v. Edmondson Vill. Shopping Ctr. Holdings, LLC
...protect those entering the tenant's apartment from being attacked by the dog. Id . at 552, 565-66, 570, 719 A.2d 119. Scott v. Watson , 278 Md. 160, 359 A.2d 548 (1976), is the seminal Maryland case about a landlord's duty to protect tenants from the criminal acts of third persons. The Cour......
-
Prudential Securities Inc. v. E-Net, Inc.
...531, 515 A.2d 756, 758 (1986); Cramer v. Housing Opportunities Comm'n, 304 Md. 705, 712, 501 A.2d 35, 39 (1985); Scott v. Watson, 278 Md. 160, 165, 359 A.2d 548, 552 (1976); Peroti v. Williams, 258 Md. 663, 669, 267 A.2d 114, 118 (1970). Absent a duty of care, there can be no liability in n......