By Sean Regan

Condominium law presents a complex legal landscape where determining liability can be challenging, especially in cases involving unforeseeable acts of violence within the premises. To shed light on this intricate subject, we delve into a recent case that serves as a poignant example of the complexities surrounding liability. In this article, we will explore the legal principles that guided the decision and draw valuable lessons that condominium associations can glean from a landlord’s duty to prevent foreseeable risks to patrons.

The Case in Question

The focal point of the case was a tragic execution-style murder that unfolded within the confines of a property. The crux of the matter revolved around whether the owner of the property hereafter referred to as UTP, bore a duty to protect the decedent against a sudden, unforeseeable act of violence. After meticulous review of the summary judgment record, it was determined that UTP could not have reasonably foreseen the risk or prevented the crime, ultimately absolving them of this duty.

Lack of Affiliation or Knowledge

A pivotal aspect of the case centered on the absence of any evidence linking UTP to the perpetrator of the crime or the underlying dispute. The court underscored that there was no discernible connection between UTP, the property itself, or City Limits, the nightclub situated within the premises. The crime appeared to have transpired merely because the perpetrator happened upon the decedent on that ill-fated evening.

Duty Encompasses What Should Have Been Known

While UTP’s duty is not solely contingent upon what they knew, it also encompasses what they should have known. The plaintiff posited that prior incidents of violence at the property made the harm foreseeable. However, the court held that even if UTP should have been aware of these prior occurrences, it would not conclusively establish their duty. Previous criminal acts serve as just one element in gauging foreseeability.

Ability to Prevent Harm

Of paramount importance, the court scrutinized UTP’s capacity to prevent the harm alleged by the plaintiff. The evidence failed to substantiate the notion that suggested security measures, such as enhanced lighting and increased security presence, could have thwarted the shooting. In a surprising twist, it was revealed that the shooter had interacted with security staff before committing the crime, signifying that their presence did not serve as a deterrent.

Landlord’s Liability and Foreseeability

This case served to highlight a well-established legal tenet: landlords are not the guarantors of individuals’ safety within a property’s common areas. The potential for criminal conduct looms in various facets of daily life, making it challenging to predict violent attacks. Consequently, the law does not impose the responsibility for all harm stemming from random criminal acts on property owners, unless they had knowledge or reason to anticipate a threat and could have taken reasonable preventive measures.

Lessons from Landlord Duty

Drawing parallels between a landlord’s duty and that of a condominium association unveils essential insights. Much like condo associations, landlords must evaluate the foreseeability of risks posed to patrons or residents within their premises. In the case of UTP, the lack of evidence connecting them to the perpetrator, or the underlying dispute played a pivotal role. The crime seemed to have occurred simply because the perpetrator crossed paths with the victim on that unfortunate evening. Foreseeability remains a dynamic and variable element in condo association liability cases. Consider the UTP case, where the judge stressed that not all harm can be predicted or prevented. This case underscores the importance of comprehending foreseeability and the responsibilities shared by both landlords and condo associations when addressing unforeseeable acts of violence.

Security Audits and Liability Insurance

While landlords and condo associations have distinct roles and responsibilities, they can draw valuable lessons from each other’s experiences. In response to safety and security complaints, both entities should act promptly. Engaging a professional to conduct a security audit, assess vulnerabilities, and recommend necessary improvements is a prudent step for both landlords and condo associations.

Additionally, exploring options to bolster liability insurance coverage is essential for mitigating potential legal complications.

Specific Steps for Condo Associations

Now, let’s focus on the specific steps that condo associations can glean from a landlord’s duty to mitigate foreseeable risks:

  1. Risk Assessment: Conduct regular assessments of security and safety risks within the condominium property. Identify potential areas of concern and vulnerabilities that could jeopardize residents’ safety.
  2. Security Audits: Similar to landlords, condo associations should consider hiring professionals to evaluate security measures, identify weaknesses, and recommend improvements.
  3. Liability Insurance: Ensure that the association has sufficient liability insurance coverage to protect against unforeseen legal claims and potential settlements.
  4. Communication: Foster open communication between residents and the board. Encourage residents to promptly report safety concerns.
  5. Safety Measures: Implement appropriate safety measures based on risk assessment and security audit findings. This may involve improving lighting, increasing security personnel, or enhancing access control systems.
  6. Legal Compliance: Stay informed about local regulations and legal requirements pertaining to safety and security. Ensure full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations to minimize legal liabilities.


By taking specific steps to enhance security, maintain effective communication, and uphold legal requirements, condo associations can create safer and more secure environments for residents while minimizing potential legal liabilities.


Written by

Sean Regan

Share this article
Share this article