Dolphin Realty v. Headley, 610 S.E.2d 99 (2005). Be sure to thoroughly explain your reasoning when you respond.
Primary Task Response: Within the Discussion Board area, write 400-600 words that respond to the following questions with your thoughts, ideas, and comments. This will be the foundation for future discussions by your classmates. Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas:
In this case, a tenant was attacked when she returned to her apartment from the laundry room. "As was her habit, she left her front door unlocked because the laundromat was so close." Is the tenant to blame for what happened because she left her apartment unlocked?
The resident manager of Riverside for ten years was "horrified" and "shocked" because this was the first time a resident had been attacked and sexually assaulted on the property. Does the lack of serious crimes on the property excuse the landlord from paying attention to crime prevention?
The landlord sent a letter to all residents telling them about the attack and warning them to be cautious. It stated that "[a]s you realize, no one can guarantee your safety. We remind you that your security is the responsibility of the local law enforcement and yourself. We believe that by taking an active role in your own security you can help avoid any unnecessary problems."
Headley claimed that Riverside was negligent in failing to protect her from two attacks by the same assailant based on Riverside's "superior knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of [the] premises because of prior, substantially similar incidents," because of which Riverside "had reason to anticipate a criminal act would occur on its premises."
Is it reasonable for the landlord to expect tenants to be responsible for their own safety?
Is it reasonable for the tenant to expect the landlord to be responsible for her safety?
If you were representing the landlord, what facts in this case would you use to show that the landlord had done enough?
If you were representing the tenant, what facts in this case would you use to show that the landlord had not done enough?
Landlords are expected to exercise ordinary care to protect tenants from hazardous situations. If there was plaster falling from the hallway ceiling or if electrical outlets had exposed wiring, the landlord would be expected to make necessary repairs. Is protection from crime different from these examples? Why or why not?