a.) Duty to Protect Residents’ Safety from Third Parties

Generally, owners and operators have no duty to protect residents from loss or injury due to the criminal acts of a third party. However, when an owner or operator voluntarily provides security measures, the law then imposes a duty upon him/her to protect residents from criminal attacks. If the security measures are negligently installed, the owner or operator may be liable. For example, an owner may create a duty to provide security when s/he installs self-closing, self-locking steel doors at the street level entrance to the residents’ apartments. The court in such a case concluded that whether the owner had assumed a duty was a question of fact that had to be determined by a jury. Indiana law also recognizes that an owner or operator owes the residents’ social guests the same duty s/he owes the residents.

b.) Duty to Protect Residents’ Property from Third Parties

Owners and operators may create a duty to protect the personal property of their residents and their residents’ guests. Such a duty was announced in a case where the owner posted a guard restricting access to the burned remains of an apartment and, despite the guard’s presence, a third party removed and misplaced or stole the resident’s property. The court found that the owner and operator assumed the obligation to protect the personal property within the apartments (both of the lessee and the individual the owner knew was residing with the resident), breached the obligation, and thereby caused injury.

c.) Duty to Protect Residents from Owner’s Employees: Master Key Policy

Owners and operators have a duty to protect residents from burglary by the owner or operator’s employees and agents through the use of a master key. The Indiana Court of Appeals found that an owner breached this duty when he allowed unquestioned access to master keys by 12 employees and an unknown number of employees from a carpet cleaning company. After the first reported burglary, the resident asked for and received a lock change since the police found no sign of forced entry. A second burglary occurred a week later, again with no forced entry. Between the two burglaries, the owner did not change his master key policy. The court said this action thwarted any attempt to determine who perpetrated the first burglary and reduce the risk of further burglaries.

In reaching its decision, the court considered three factors: (1) the foreseeability of the injury, (2) the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and (3) the consequences of placing that burden upon the defendant. Implicitly, the court found the injuries to the resident foreseeable, the burden on the owner to change the master key policy reasonable, and no consequences by placing the burden on the owner. The court stated that access to master keys could be greatly restricted and monitored for the protection of the residents.

d.) Duty of Contractors

In the context of builders and contractors, the Indiana Supreme Court has stated:

“It is now the almost universal rule that the contractor is liable to all those who may foreseeably be injured by the structure, not only when he fails to disclose dangerous conditions known to him, but also when the work is negligently done. This applies not only to contractors doing original work, but also to those who make repairs, or install parts, as well as supervising architects and engineers. There may be liability for negligent design, as well as for negligent construction.”

Keywords: crime