## Facts

- Sarah B. Kline was a tenant in a 585-unit apartment building owned and operated by 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corporation in Washington, D.C.
- When Kline moved in (1959), the building had substantial security: a 24-hour doorman at the main entrance, a continuously staffed lobby desk observing elevator access, monitored garage-linked access at the 15th Street entrance, and the 16th Street entrance locked after 9:00 p.m.
- By mid-1966, the landlord reduced security: the main entrance lacked a doorman, the lobby desk was often unattended, the 15th Street entrance was generally unguarded, and the 16th Street entrance was often left unlocked overnight.
- These reductions occurred while crimes against tenants increased in the building’s common areas, including assaults, robberies, and larcenies.
- The landlord had notice of the pattern of criminal incidents, including through tenant complaints and documented prior offenses.
- On November 17, 1966, Kline was assaulted and robbed by an intruder in a common hallway outside her apartment, suffering serious injuries; a similar attack had previously occurred in the same location.
- Kline sued, alleging the landlord negligently failed to maintain reasonable security in common areas despite foreseeable risk.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties in common areas under the landlord’s control.
2. Whether the landlord breached the applicable standard of care by reducing security measures despite notice of increasing crime.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the judgment for the landlord.
- The court held the landlord owed a duty to take reasonable protective measures against foreseeable third-party criminal acts in common areas under the landlord’s exclusive control.
- The court concluded that, on these facts, the landlord breached the applicable standard of care.
- The case was remanded for determination of damages.

## Legal Principles

- A landlord who retains exclusive control over common areas owes tenants a duty of reasonable care as to conditions and risks in those areas.
- When prior similar crimes make further criminal attacks foreseeable, and the landlord has notice and the ability to act, reasonable security measures may be required.
- The duty is limited: the landlord is not an insurer of tenant safety and is not required to provide police-level protection, but must take measures within the landlord’s power that are reasonable to reduce foreseeable risk.
- Tenant dependence and inability to secure common areas support imposing a duty where the landlord controls entrances, hallways, and related security arrangements.
- A landlord’s unilateral reduction of established security, in the face of known and increasing criminal activity, can support a finding of breach.

## Conclusion

The court imposed a limited duty on landlords to use reasonable care to protect tenants from foreseeable third-party crime in common areas the landlord controls, and held that reducing building security despite notice of escalating crime could constitute negligence, warranting liability and a damages determination.


Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp., 439 F.2d 477 (D.C. Cir. 1970)