## Facts

- Samuel and Peggy Feld were tenants in the Cedarbrook Apartment complex, a large residential development with multiple high-rise buildings.
- Cedarbrook offered garage parking near the buildings for an additional fee.
- On June 27, 1975, around 9:00 p.m., the Felds were attacked at gunpoint by three armed assailants while parking in their assigned garage space.
- The assailants forced the Felds into their car, drove out of the garage past a gate guard, and abducted Mrs. Feld; Mr. Feld was later released.
- Mrs. Feld suffered severe injuries, including sexual assault, during the abduction.
- The Felds sued the landlord entities and an independent security contractor, alleging negligent security and failure to protect tenants from criminal acts on the premises.
- A jury found the landlords liable and awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages; the security contractor was found not liable.

## Issues

1. Whether a residential landlord has a general duty to protect tenants from criminal acts of unknown third persons occurring on the premises.
2. Whether a landlord that provides a security or “program of protection” assumes a duty, and the scope of any such assumed duty.
3. Whether the jury instructions improperly imposed a broad duty “to protect” tenants from crime, rather than limiting liability to negligent performance of any voluntarily assumed security measures.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the judgment against the landlords and remanded.
- The court held landlords generally have no duty to protect tenants from criminal acts of unknown third parties.
- The court recognized a limited duty where a landlord voluntarily undertakes a specific security program: the landlord must exercise reasonable care in carrying out that undertaking.
- The trial court’s jury instructions erroneously permitted liability based on a broad, general duty to protect tenants from criminal attack, exceeding Pennsylvania law.
- Because the verdict rested on an incorrect legal duty framework, reversal was required.

## Legal Principles

- A residential landlord’s traditional duty is to maintain the premises (including common areas) in a reasonably safe physical condition; it does not ordinarily include policing against third-party crime.
- Criminal acts by independent third persons are not treated as conditions of the premises for which a landlord is generally responsible.
- A landlord may assume a duty by voluntarily providing security; liability then turns on negligent performance of the specific undertaking and causation.
- Tenant reliance on a security program is limited to the program’s reasonable expectations; tenants cannot reasonably expect the landlord to prevent all criminal conduct.
- Jury instructions must define the duty consistently with this limited voluntary-undertaking standard; imposing a general duty to protect from crime is reversible error.

## Conclusion

Pennsylvania rejected a general rule making landlords responsible for protecting tenants from unknown third-party अपराध, but imposed a narrower negligence duty when landlords choose to provide security, requiring reasonable care within the defined scope of the security program and accurate jury instructions reflecting that limited duty.


Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1984)