Can landlords be liable for failing to warn about potential crimes?

If a landlord fails to warn tenants of potential crimes after becoming aware of criminal acts in their area, can they be held liable if a resident is victimized? Recent court decisions in a case involving a shooting in Homestead concluded that yes, a landlord does indeed owe a duty to warn tenants of such reasonably foreseeable dangers.

The case of Juan Guelmes v. Dama Holding LLC stemmed from an incident in August 2014 when Guelmes was a tenant residing in one of several single-family homes owned by Dama on a Homestead cul-de-sac. While cleaning his car, Guelmes was grabbed by an attacker in an attempted robbery. After a scuffle, Guelmes was shot four times.

Guelmes filed a lawsuit alleging that the owner had a duty to maintain the home in a reasonably safe condition, but the LLC failed to warn him of the dangers that it knew or reasonably should have known existed because the dwelling was located in a high-crime area where numerous similar attacks had occurred and were reasonably likely to take place.

In its defense, Dama denied that it had a duty to protect the tenant from third-party crimes, which were not foreseeable. It denied that it had constructive or actual knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition, and asserted that Guelmes should have had knowledge of any potential conduct that resulted in his injuries, and that his own actions contributed to his being victimized.

During the trial, the jury concluded that Dama was negligent, which caused the tenant’s injuries. It awarded him a total of $4 million. In the LLC’s appeal before the state’s Third District Court of Appeal, the company argued that the trial court should have directed a verdict in its favor because Dama had no duty to prevent or warn of criminal activities by third parties. It posited there was no evidence that the company had actual or constructive notice of criminal activity on the cul-de-sac or the surrounding neighborhood.

The appellate panel found that both Guelmes and the property owner stipulated to several facts before the trial, including that the LLC had a non-delegable duty to provide reasonably safe premises, which includes the duty to protect tenants from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks. The owner argued it intended to present evidence of the tenant’s negligence and his own duty to ensure his safety, as well as evidence of its lack of knowledge of offensive conduct and lack of control over the premises.

Expert testimony presented during the trial revealed that within the five-year period before the incident, 351 crimes had been committed in the area. These included eight assaults, 19 batteries, more than 80 thefts, about 100 residential or auto burglaries, and six robberies. At the Dama-owned properties on the cul-de-sac, there was a residential burglary in November 2009; an aggravated assault in June; a vehicle burglary in September; a burglary as well as a burglary of an unoccupied residence in October 2010; residential burglaries in June and October 2011; and a residential burglary in January 2013. The testimony also revealed there was a residential burglary in January 2011, occupied residential armed burglary in May 2011, and a burglary and grand theft in April 2012 that all took place at the specific home rented by Guelmes.

The 2012 incident at the home was reported to the police by Dama’s property manager, who also testified that there was no security at the properties, he never spoke with the tenant about security, and he was not aware of any crimes at the home prior to his taking over. He said he never had discussions with the tenant about crime in the area because there was no need, and he insisted the area was safe despite being shown eight police reports for crimes that took place on the Dama properties.

The LLC’s principal owner testified during his deposition that he thought “the tenants should maintain the properties in a reasonably safe condition. That’s how it’s done in Venezuela, which is a very unsafe country. I don’t know how it’s done in the United States.”

When asked if he thought Dama should maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, he testified that he did not think so. In response to a question about whether the company would have warned the tenant if it was aware of dangerous conditions, he responded: “I don’t think that’s Dama’s responsibility. They learn about it through the newspapers or police, and it is not Dama’s responsibility. So I don’t think it’s its duty, the duty of Dama to inform about that, especially when the owner of the property lives in Venezuela.”

He further explained that even if the LLC was aware of dangerous conditions, it would have been “easier” for the tenant to learn about this from a neighbor, and he disagreed that the owner should take precautions as are reasonably necessary to protect its residents.

During his own testimony, Guelmes stated that he asked the company’s property manager about the neighborhood before renting the home, and he was told it was “calm.”

In denying the motion for a directed verdict, the trial court concluded that the company owed the tenant a duty of care because the attack was reasonably foreseeable based on the evidence, which demonstrated that the LLC had actual and constructive knowledge of similar crimes that occurred at its properties for years before the incident. The appellate panel affirmed the decision, concluding that Dama admitted it was aware of the prior crimes on its properties but failed to inform its tenants; there was evidence that many similar crimes had occurred during the prior years in the neighborhood; and the question of foreseeability was properly left for the jury to decide.

For other Florida residential property owners and managers, including community associations and their property management providers, the takeaways from this case should be crystal clear. They can face significant legal and financial liabilities for criminal acts that are deemed to be reasonably foreseeable, and they should warn residents of potential dangers and use sound security precautions.

Christyne D. Santisteban is an attorney with the South Florida law firm of Siegfried Rivera who focuses on community association law and is based at the firm’s Coral Gables office. She is a regular contributor to its Newsroom blog at www.SiegfriedRivera.com/blog. The firm also maintains offices in Broward and Palm Beach counties, and its 48 attorneys focus on real estate, community association, construction, and insurance law. CSantisteban@SiegfriedRivera.com, www.SiegfriedRivera.com, 305-442-3334.