Estates Claim Residence Owner Did Not Provide Adequate Security

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Allegations that a dangerous individual resided at or visited the landlords property at the same time that plaintiffs’ decedents resided at or visited the property may be insufficient to prove that a special relationship of custody and control existed that required the landlord to protect plaintiffs’ decedents.

Plaintiffs alleged the following facts, which have not been proven. In 2013, John Lynn allegedly shot three individuals inside the Dye House Apartments on Pine Street in Manchester. Plaintiff estate administrators sued Dye House Apartments and property manager Konover Residential Corp. and alleged that defendants knew, or should have known, that John Lynn previously had engaged in criminal or dangerous activity and that a substantial likelihood existed that Lynn would endanger the safety of individuals on the premises. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were negligent and reckless, because they did not adopt adequate rules and regulations to deter criminals and dangerous individuals; they did not expel Lynn; they did not provide adequate safety equipment and security guards; and they did not arrange to monitor, inspect and patrol the premises. Defendants moved to strike and argued that plaintiffs did not allege that defendants were in exclusive control of the area where criminal conduct took place. The general rule is that no duty exists to help or to protect a third party. Sometimes landlords possess the “duty to take affirmative action to protect tenants and their guests from the criminal conduct of third parties,” pursuant to Ryan Transp. v. M&G Assoc., a 2003 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. That duty, wrote the Supreme Court, “generally is limited to areas of the leasehold over which the landlord has exclusive control or to situations in which the landlord has the exclusive ability to prevent the unlawful conduct.” The trial court found that allegations that Lynn resided at or visited the premises at the same time that plaintiffs’ decedents resided at or visited the premises was insufficient to establish that a special relationship of custody and control existed that created a duty to protect plaintiffs’ decedents. Motion granted. “A special relationship of custody and control,” wrote the court, “does not arise from the mere fact that the defendants were the owner and property manager of an apartment complex where the decedents were tenants or invitees.”

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.
Source: J. Fischer. Estates Claimed Owner Did Not Provide Adequate Security. CONN. LAW TRIBUNE, May 23, 2016 at 19.