Here's a note that a client recently sent to Jeff Romanick of Gross & Romanick.
"Just wanted to personally thank you again for making the best out of my situation today. I couldn’t have asked for a better outcome, especially considering the charges against me. I am forever indebted to you! I wish you nothing but the best in your future legal conquests and cases."
To speak to Jeff Romanick (or any of the attorneys at Gross & Romanick) about your own situation, please contact the firm by calling 703-273-1400 or by filling out their online Information Request Form.
Showing posts with label commercial landlord virginia lawyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commercial landlord virginia lawyer. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Landlord's Duties for Criminal and Terrorist Attacks
Although there is no specific body of terrorist case law, legal analysis of landlord's liability for acts of terrorism will probably rely on the general body of law involving landlord liability for criminal actions of third parties.
Unless there is a lease provision obligating the landlord to provide security measures, a lawsuit will be based upon a negligence (tort) theory. The required elements for asserting a negligence case against a landlord are: (a) a duty to protect the victim, (b) the attack was foreseeable, (c) breach of a duty to protect the victim, and (d) the breach was the proximate cause of the attack and the victim's injuries.
District of Columbia: One of the first cases to hold that a landlord has a duty to protect tenants was a 1970 District of Columbia case, Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp., in which the court imposed a duty on residential landlords to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts by applying a warranty of habilitability to defects in security and by recognizing a "special relationship" between landlord and tenant.
Virginia: There are some cases in Virginia, such as Thompson v. Skate America (2001), in which the landlord was held liable for an assault. Nevertheless, for the most part Virginia has not favored these suits. A 2001 Virginia Supreme Court case, Yuzefovsky v. St. John's Wood Apartment, indicates that there are very limited circumstances in which liability will be imposed on a property owner, leasing broker or property manager for injuries to a tenant or invitee.
Facts of Yuzefovsky Case: Prior to signing the lease, Plaintiff had specifically inquired about the safety of the apartment building. The property manager stated that the development was "safe", that police officers lived in the development and that police vehicles patrolled the development. The tenant sued the landlord for being shot by a sawed-off shotgun in the common area of the development. After the shooting the tenant learned that in 1 year there were 656 crimes reported in the vicinity and within 3 years there were 257 crimes (including 5 robberies and 8 aggravated assaults) reported in the development. Thus, it was proven that the landlord's employee had misrepresented that the development was safe and crime-free, and that police lived in and patrolled the development.
Finding by the Court: While the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that the statements of the property manager were fraudulent, it found that the fraud was too remote from the criminal assault to give rise to liability. The Court stated that there might be a contract claim based upon fraudulent inducement, but not a claim for negligence.
When would Virginia impose liability? The Court enumerated some circumstances under which the landlord might be held liable for a criminal assault, including if the landlord knows that criminal assaults were occurring or were about to occur on the premises. With this knowledge there would be a heightened degree of foreseeable harm that would impose a duty on landlord to protect tenants and invitees.
The above article is not meant to replace legal counsel. To speak to one of our attorneys please contact Gross & Romanick directly at (703) 273-1400.
Unless there is a lease provision obligating the landlord to provide security measures, a lawsuit will be based upon a negligence (tort) theory. The required elements for asserting a negligence case against a landlord are: (a) a duty to protect the victim, (b) the attack was foreseeable, (c) breach of a duty to protect the victim, and (d) the breach was the proximate cause of the attack and the victim's injuries.
District of Columbia: One of the first cases to hold that a landlord has a duty to protect tenants was a 1970 District of Columbia case, Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp., in which the court imposed a duty on residential landlords to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts by applying a warranty of habilitability to defects in security and by recognizing a "special relationship" between landlord and tenant.
Virginia: There are some cases in Virginia, such as Thompson v. Skate America (2001), in which the landlord was held liable for an assault. Nevertheless, for the most part Virginia has not favored these suits. A 2001 Virginia Supreme Court case, Yuzefovsky v. St. John's Wood Apartment, indicates that there are very limited circumstances in which liability will be imposed on a property owner, leasing broker or property manager for injuries to a tenant or invitee.
Facts of Yuzefovsky Case: Prior to signing the lease, Plaintiff had specifically inquired about the safety of the apartment building. The property manager stated that the development was "safe", that police officers lived in the development and that police vehicles patrolled the development. The tenant sued the landlord for being shot by a sawed-off shotgun in the common area of the development. After the shooting the tenant learned that in 1 year there were 656 crimes reported in the vicinity and within 3 years there were 257 crimes (including 5 robberies and 8 aggravated assaults) reported in the development. Thus, it was proven that the landlord's employee had misrepresented that the development was safe and crime-free, and that police lived in and patrolled the development.
Finding by the Court: While the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that the statements of the property manager were fraudulent, it found that the fraud was too remote from the criminal assault to give rise to liability. The Court stated that there might be a contract claim based upon fraudulent inducement, but not a claim for negligence.
When would Virginia impose liability? The Court enumerated some circumstances under which the landlord might be held liable for a criminal assault, including if the landlord knows that criminal assaults were occurring or were about to occur on the premises. With this knowledge there would be a heightened degree of foreseeable harm that would impose a duty on landlord to protect tenants and invitees.
The above article is not meant to replace legal counsel. To speak to one of our attorneys please contact Gross & Romanick directly at (703) 273-1400.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Building Manager Liable for Theft of Tenant's Property
In Virginia it is rare that a landlord or property manager is found responsible for third party criminal acts against tenants. Nevertheless, in the 2002 Arlington County Circuit Court case of King v. Atrium Unit Owners Association, a jury found a building manager liable for the burglary of a tenant's condominium.
Facts: While on vacation, a tenant left the key to her condo with a building manager. Circumstantial evidence satisfied the jury that the burglar used the key left with the building manager to steal $250,000 worth of property.
Finding: The building manager was negligent in the custodianship of the key.
Advice: Landlords, building managers and property managers must protect tenant keys, master keys and access codes that will permit access to tenant's premises. Negligent handling of such keys or access codes may result in liability for thefts.
For more information about commercial landlord law or to seek legal representation, contact Gross & Romanick today.
Facts: While on vacation, a tenant left the key to her condo with a building manager. Circumstantial evidence satisfied the jury that the burglar used the key left with the building manager to steal $250,000 worth of property.
Finding: The building manager was negligent in the custodianship of the key.
Advice: Landlords, building managers and property managers must protect tenant keys, master keys and access codes that will permit access to tenant's premises. Negligent handling of such keys or access codes may result in liability for thefts.
For more information about commercial landlord law or to seek legal representation, contact Gross & Romanick today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)