The Court of Appeals has reversed the ruling of the Court of Special Appeals in Hemmings v. Pelham Wood Limited Liability Limited Partnership, et al.  In that case, Howard W. Hemmings and Suzette Hemmings rented a second floor apartment in Pelham Wood, a 400 unit apartment building in Baltimore County. Their apartment was equipped with deadbolt locks and bars which secured the sliding glass doors of the apartment balconies. On June 13, 1998, Mr. Hemmings was murdered by an unidentified intruder who forcibly entered the apartment through the sliding glass door on the second floor balcony. Entry was forced. The lock on the sliding glass door was damaged.

 There was evidence before the lower court that the landlord had received numerous complaints from tenants about safety of the premises, and a security light that had been broken.  The complaints from other tenants concerned robbery, threats at gun point, questionable visitors, vandalism, theft, suspicious activities and other complaints.  

The Court of Special Appeals distinguished between a landlord’s duties to protect tenants from criminal acts committed in common areas within the landlord’s control and those imposed upon a landlord with regard to those areas under the tenant’s control. Generally, a landlord must exercise ordinary care and diligence in maintaining common areas in a reasonably safe condition.  However, the Court of Special Appeals refused to apply that duty to provide reasonable security from criminal acts that occur within the apartment. Accordingly, it affirmed the summary judgment entered in favor of the landlord. 

The Court of Appeals reversed, stating:

 “. . .a landlord’s duty to maintain safe common areas is not limited to preventing harm that occurs only within the common areas.  Rather, negligent maintenance of or failure to correct a known defect in areas under the control of the landlord may result in liability for injuries that occur within the leased premises.  It follows, therefore, that the duty to use reasonable care for the tenant’s safety within the common areas also may apply to injuries suffered from criminal acts within in the leased premises.  In other words, the fact that a criminal attack occurred within a leased apartment unit does not preclude the application of the duties set forth in Scott.” 

The decision of the Court of Special Appeals was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for a trial to determine whether the landlord breached its duties.                              

Suzette Hemmings v. Pelham Wood Limited Liability Limited Partnership, et al., Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 56, September Term 2002, filed June 16, 2003.

[Return to Real Estate Update]