Landlord Liability for Third Party Criminal Acts

A recent South Carolina Supreme Court opinion has sparked an important conversation about whether landlords have a duty to protect tenants from third party criminal acts.  In Wright v. PRG Real Estate Management, et. al., the tenant (Wright) was robbed and kidnapped at gunpoint by two men hiding behind overgrown shrubbery in an unlit common area of the complex. She sued the apartment complex owners, property management company, and the property manager, individually, for negligence, Wright claimed, in part, that the apartment complex voluntarily undertook a duty to provide security to residents and breached this duty.

In South Carolina, landlords are generally under no duty to provide security to protect tenants from criminal acts of third parties. However, a landlord who voluntarily undertakes to provide security measures may be liable if the undertaking is performed negligently. Here, when Wright looked at apartments in this complex, she made known that security was important to her.  The property manager told Wright there were security officers on duty.  When Wright signed the lease, she had that expectation.

Despite the property manager’s representations concerning security at the apartment complex, the internal employee manual (which was not shared with Wright or other tenants) actually stated that the complex generally does not provide security for residents.  However, the complex did provide a “courtesy officer program” allowing residents who were law enforcement officers to serve as “courtesy officers” for the complex during their off-duty time in exchange for discounted rent.  The apartment complex included a “security pager number” in its monthly tenant newsletter along with a prominent declaration that “security is a top priority for us.”

Significantly, the parameters of the courtesy officer agreements were kept internally and not provided to residents. Therefore, the residents did not know the program was limited to courtesy officers spending two hours a day walking the property, answering calls regarding incidents on the property, and submitting daily reports to the property manager. Notably, courtesy officers were asked not to carry their weapons unless required by their law enforcement employer. Unfortunately, on the night in question, there was not a courtesy officer on duty. In fact, there had not been a courtesy officer at the apartment complex for the previous two months.

The dispute in this case centered around what security measures the apartment complex actually offered vs. what security measures the tenant thought were offered.

In this case, the Supreme Court did not decide that landlords have a duty to protect tenants from third party criminal acts – but, the Supreme Court reiterated that a landlord who voluntarily undertakes a security program for its tenants, they “may be liable if the undertaking is performed negligently.” (emphasis added).  In this case, the Court made it very clear that:

• Tenants need to be aware of the limitations of security provided by landlords;
• Tenants should be given very clear expectations of what type of security is provided and how it is provided;
• When a landlord voluntarily provides a security officer program, they must administer the program with due care;
• Landlords have the right to impose limitations on the program(s) offered or even discontinue the program; however, landlords are encouraged to notify their tenants of the limitations or any discontinuation;
• A court will likely favor the tenants’ understanding of what security measures are provided.

The bottom line for landlords and property management companies in the wake of this Supreme Court decision: landlords who voluntarily undertake to offer a security program are urged to tell their tenants about the parameters of security program offered and its limitations and to execute the program with due care.