## Facts

- Carlos Martinez attended a graduation party at a 152-unit condominium complex as a tenant’s social guest.
- After about fifteen minutes, Martinez and others went to the common-area parking lot to check on their cars and encountered a group sitting on a friend’s car.
- An altercation occurred; as Martinez ran away, he was shot in the back by an unidentified assailant.
- The condominium homeowners association managed the complex and retained control over common areas, including the parking lot.
- The association employed a live-in security guard who recognized the group as a recurring gang from a neighboring complex that gathered in the parking lot to sell drugs and engage in other misconduct.
- The guard usually dispersed the group when encountered and had warned the association that additional security measures were needed.
- The association used a single overnight guard shift for budget reasons; the shooting occurred about one hour before the guard’s shift began.
- Martinez alleged the association negligently failed to take reasonable security measures in the parking lot despite known, recurring criminal activity.

## Issues

1. Whether a condominium homeowners association that retains control over common areas owes a duty of reasonable care to protect a resident’s lawful social guest from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties in those areas.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where evidence suggested the association knew of recurring dangerous activity in the common-area parking lot and declined additional security for cost reasons.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and vacated the trial court’s summary judgment for the association.
- The court held that an association exercising landlord-like control over common areas owes residents and their lawful guests a duty of reasonable care to take reasonable measures against foreseeable criminal acts in those areas.
- The court concluded that, given evidence of recurring gang activity and prior warnings, breach and causation presented fact questions not suitable for resolution on summary judgment.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A party retaining control over common areas must exercise reasonable care to keep those areas reasonably safe, which can include reasonable precautions against foreseeable third-party criminal conduct.
- A condominium homeowners association that controls and manages common elements may be treated, for duty purposes, like a landlord with respect to common-area safety obligations.
- Foreseeability may be shown by knowledge of recurring criminal activity and internal warnings recommending additional protective measures.
- Duty analysis in this setting is driven by control over the premises and foreseeability of harm, not rigid invitee/licensee labels.
- The duty is one of reasonable care; the controlling entity is not an insurer against all criminal acts, and the reasonableness of particular security measures is generally a jury question when supported by evidence.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that a condominium association controlling common areas owes residents and their lawful guests a duty of reasonable care to take reasonable steps to address foreseeable criminal risks in those areas, making summary judgment inappropriate where evidence supports foreseeability and a potentially unreasonable failure to act.


Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 189 Ariz. 206, 941 P.2d 218 (Ariz. 1997)