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
- 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.
- 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.