## Facts

- Jane Doe worked for a subtenant in a multi-tenant office building at 1430 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., for which Dominion Bank of Washington, N.A. held the master lease and functioned as operator/landlord.
- In early 1989, as the property was being prepared for sale, multiple leases expired, leaving several floors vacant by May 1989.
- During business hours, the building was generally accessible: visitors could enter the lobby and reach elevators without screening, and vacant floors/suites were not effectively secured.
- On May 24, 1989, while Doe was alone at work, an assailant entered her elevator when it stopped at a vacant floor, dragged her into a vacant suite, and raped and robbed her.
- Doe presented evidence of prior security problems, including thefts, burglaries, reports of intruders, and tenant complaints about drug use and sexual activity occurring in the building.
- Tenants had complained to management about inadequate security; one tenant reported a “threatening intruder” and requested increased security, and another reported an intruder about a week before the attack.
- Doe offered expert testimony that the building’s security fell below acceptable commercial standards, emphasizing the failure to lock or restrict access to vacant floors and suites.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed favorably to Doe, permitted a reasonable jury to find the attack reasonably foreseeable, such that Dominion Bank owed a duty to take reasonable protective measures.
2. Whether, under District of Columbia negligence law, a landlord/building operator with notice of recurring intrusions and security deficiencies may be liable for failing to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from violent third-party crimes in common or vacant areas.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the directed verdict for Dominion Bank and remanded for further proceedings.
- It held that a reasonable jury could find the rape reasonably foreseeable based on the pattern of intrusions, tenant complaints, and evidence of unsecured vacant space.
- It rejected the view that foreseeability of a violent attack requires prior violent crimes on the premises as a prerequisite.
- It concluded that the trial court erred by removing the foreseeability and negligence questions from the jury where the record allowed competing reasonable inferences.

## Legal Principles

- A private party generally has no duty to protect another from third-party criminal acts, but a duty may arise from a special relationship (including landlord/operator to tenants and invitees) combined with reasonable foreseeability of criminal harm.
- Foreseeability in premises-liability cases is ordinarily a fact question for the jury when evidence permits reasonable disagreement; judgment as a matter of law is proper only when no reasonable juror could find foreseeability.
- Prior non-violent crimes, repeated trespasses, complaints about intruders, and known security vulnerabilities can support foreseeability of more serious violent crime; the precise manner of attack need not be predicted.
- Evidence of security standards and failures to secure known high-risk areas (such as vacant floors and suites) may support both breach and foreseeability by showing the operator should have anticipated heightened risk.

## Conclusion

The court held that the record could support a jury finding that Dominion Bank, as building operator, should have anticipated a serious criminal attack given repeated intrusions, tenant warnings, and unsecured vacant floors; it therefore reversed the directed verdict and returned the negligence claim to the jury for resolution.


Doe v. Dominion Bank of Wash., N.A., 963 F.2d 1552 (D.C. Cir. 1992)