I’m studying for my Business Law class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?

Discussion Topic 1:

This Discussion will assess how well you understand the law regarding landlords’ liability for criminal acts. Begin by reading the facts of the case (Dickinson Arms-Reo, L.P. v. Campbell), then decide: Was the landlord liable for the death?

Read the arguments for both sides carefully before formulating your

decision. Be sure to reference (with proper APA citation) applicable laws to support your decision.

Also response each posted #1 to 3 down below

Posted 1

In
the case of Dickinson Arms-Reo, L.P. v. Campbell, there are questions
of whether the defendant (landlord) was liable for the death of Joe
Campbell on June 15, 1994. In order for me to access if the defendant
was liable, I had to turn to the various elements of negligence and
consider each of them separate as was done in the case. The various
elements to prove negligence are duty, a breach of said duty, causation,
and finally damages. When looking at the duty that was owed, the
apartments are charged with maintaining the grounds in a manner that is
safe for those who live there and might be invited by tenants onto the
premises. The defendants tried to argue that Joe was a licensee and not
an invitee but the court denied the claim and asserted that Joe Campbell
was an invitee and thus the apartments owed the same duty to him as
they would a tenant that lives in the apartments. This means that the
apartments must be reasonably secured and free of harm for the tenants.
The defendant failed to secure the premises due to the fact that 184
incidents are recorded by police to have occurred at the location in the
form of thefts, assaults, burglaries, and such. The management failed
to take notice of the 184 occurrences and install security features that
would have potentially deterred harmful situations from coming about
again. Such securities as night guards, cameras, and informing tenants
have been proven to aid in crime prevention and the management made no
effort to use any of the methods thus failing to perform their duty to
the tenants and resulting in a breach of duty. This also addresses the
matter of if the event was foreseeable since given the number of
occurrences it was only a matter of time before another incident
happened at the apartments since no steps had been taken to deter future
incidents.

There
is also a question of cause and when addressing the cause, you usually
look for actual cause and proximate cause (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert,
& Perry, 2019). The actual cause of the death of Joe Campbell was
when he was murdered by Jeremy Gartrell. The proximate cause was when
the apartments failed to address the issues and secure the premises. If
the apartments had heeded the various crimes that had occurred on the
premises prior to Campbell’s murder and installed proper security
measures as I mentioned before then the actual cause could have been
prevented. This corresponds with the duty of the landlord to reasonably
foresee harm and do all they can to prevent it. The damages that are
awarded are thus merited since the landlord failed to perform the duty
that the landlord was charged with.

Lastly
regarding the question of if the victim knew the apartments were
dangerous? and does it matter? In my opinion, it does not matter if the
victim knew because the apartment’s landlord owes a duty to all who
enter the premises. The duty of making sure the premises are safe for
all who enter and that all foreseeable harm is taken into consideration.
If I had an issue at my home that I knew about and could harm others,
but there was a way to prevent it then I would do all I could reasonably
do to make sure the threat was dealt with. That is my duty as a
landowner and the landlord has the same duty.

Posted 2

Jeremy
Gartrell attended a gang party at the Dickinson Arms Apartments in
Dickinson, Texas. Gartrell later carjacked a tenant’s guest (Joe
Campbell) in the apartment’s parking lot and murdered him. The
relatives of the murdered man sued the apartment complex for negligence
and failing to provide security (Dickinson Arms-Reo, L.P. v Campbell).
During the case, it was noted that 184 offenses had been reported at
the complex over a three-year period. An assault had just happened at
the complex 5 days before the tenant’s guest was murdered. Even though
no murders had occurred at the complex in 5 years, residents had
complained that some of the residents and their visitors seemed
dangerous and would take over the common areas at the complex. In light
of this knowledge, courts found that the carjacking and murder of the
guest was foreseeable.

In Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain,
(1998) the Texas Supreme court laid out five factors that a court
should consider in deciding whether or not a landlord should have
foreseen criminal activity on its premises – proximity of previous
crimes to the premises; how recently previous crimes occurred; how often
previous crimes occurred; the similarity of the crime in the suit to
previous crimes; and the publicity around the previous crimes.

Considering
the 184 offenses reported and their nature (though they were not
murders, some were violent), the landlord should have known something
like this was bound to happen and taken steps to provide greater
security to keep tenants and their guests safe. It is obvious that the
landlord was aware of the criminal offenses that had taken place at the
property and failed to use reasonable care (hiring security guards,
posting signs, installing security gates, evicting criminal tenants,
etc.) to keep the property safe for tenants and guests. That failure
absolutely resulted in the death of Mr. Campbell. Thus, in my opinion,
the courts got it right with their decision to hold the landlord
liable. The apartment complex was negligent and failed to provide
security which ultimately resulted in the death of Mr. Campbell.

POsted 3

In
my opinion, the court decision was right about considering the
defendants liable for the Campbell’s death. According to evidences
collected during an investigation that was made after the crime
occurred, several incidents were recorded around the Dickinson Arms
Apartments area between 1991 and 1994, including lots of vandalism,
stolen vehicles and assault calls. Therefore, considering that the risk
of harm to a victim at apartment complex from criminal conduct was
foreseeable, under the negligence law the defendant owed the plaintiff a
duty of reasonable care (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, & Perry,
2019) .

Another
important fact is that, even considering the bad reputation of the area
where the property is located, the property manager had never called
the police department to ask about crime at the apartment or about any
preventive safety programs available for that area, neither had applied
security surveys or informed the property owner about the lighting
improvement that was identified at that time. Therefore, in my opinion
the defendant has breached the duty of reasonable care to keep the
premises safe for the tenants and their guests.

Considering
that this situation was foreseeable, and the lack of security measures
in the property caused the death of Joe Campbell, it is reasonable to
conclude that a proximate cause existed in that case. And an existence
of a damage was also evident, since one person died on that day.

Considering
all the facts described above, my understanding is that the defendant
was negligent and should be held liable for the death.