## Facts

- Frances T. owned a condominium unit in the Village Green project and was a member of the Village Green Owners Association, a nonprofit corporation governed by CC&Rs and managed by a board of directors.
- On October 8, 1980, an unknown assailant entered Frances’s unit at night and molested, raped, and robbed her.
- Frances alleged her unit had no exterior lighting that night and that the surrounding “court” area was extremely dark, making her unit the darkest location in the court.
- Throughout 1980, the project allegedly experienced an “exceptional crimewave,” including thefts, burglaries, and robberies; Frances’s unit had been burglarized earlier that year.
- Frances repeatedly requested additional lighting; after inadequate response, she installed supplemental exterior lighting.
- The board ordered her to remove the added lighting and, pending removal, not to use it; because it shared a circuit with her existing exterior light, compliance allegedly left her unit in total darkness on the night of the attack.
- Frances sued the Association and individual directors for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The trial court sustained defendants’ general demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the action.

## Issues

1. Whether a condominium owners association may owe a duty of reasonable care to a unit owner for foreseeable third-party criminal acts based on its control over common areas and project safety conditions.
2. Whether individual association directors may be personally liable in tort for their own negligent acts or omissions taken while managing association affairs.
3. Whether the pleaded facts were sufficient to state claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty at the demurrer stage.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the dismissal as to the negligence claim against the Association, holding the complaint adequately alleged a duty of reasonable care and a plausible breach and causation.
- The Court held the complaint could proceed against individual directors because corporate status does not categorically immunize directors from personal liability for their own tortious conduct.
- Applying the demurrer standard, the Court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and concluded dismissal at the pleading stage was improper at least as to negligence; treatment of the non-tort theories was more limited than the negligence holding.

## Legal Principles

- An entity that functionally controls common areas and aspects of premises safety in a common-interest development may owe a landlord-like duty of reasonable care to protect residents from foreseeable third-party criminal conduct.
- Foreseeability of criminal harm may be supported by alleged prior similar crimes, known security vulnerabilities (such as severe darkness), and specific notice of risk to the plaintiff.
- At the pleading stage, a general demurrer admits the truth of material factual allegations; a plaintiff need only allege facts showing potential entitlement to relief, not prove the case.
- Corporate form does not automatically shield directors from personal tort liability for their own negligent acts or omissions, including actions they personally directed or participated in.

## Conclusion

The court held that a condominium association with control over common areas can owe a duty of reasonable care regarding foreseeable criminal attacks, and that individual directors are not categorically immune from personal tort liability for their own negligence; the negligence claims therefore could not be dismissed on general demurrer.


Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Ass’n, 42 Cal. 3d 490 (Cal. 1986)