## Facts

- Florence Trentacost, a 61-year-old tenant, rented an apartment for over ten years in an eight-unit building in Passaic, New Jersey.
- The building had a rear entrance secured by a padlock and a front entrance with no lock; tenants and others used the unlocked front entrance.
- After returning home, Trentacost entered through the front door and, on the stairs to her apartment, was attacked from behind by an unknown assailant, dragged downstairs, and left injured; the assailant returned to steal her purse.
- Trentacost sustained severe injuries and required extended hospitalization and recovery, with continuing pain and reduced mobility at trial.
- The neighborhood had substantial criminal activity, including numerous burglaries and street muggings in the years preceding the assault.
- Trentacost had complained about suspicious persons and strangers in the hallways before the attack.
- Trentacost sued the landlord, Dr. Nathan T. Brussel, alleging failure to exercise reasonable care to secure common areas, particularly by not installing a lock on the front entrance.
- A jury found liability for Trentacost; after a new trial on damages, a second jury awarded higher damages; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a residential landlord owes a duty of reasonable care to provide minimal security in common areas to reduce foreseeable criminal assaults by third parties.
2. Whether failure to provide basic security measures for common areas can constitute a breach of the implied warranty of habitability supporting recovery for personal injuries.
3. Whether an unknown assailant’s criminal act is a superseding cause that bars liability when the risk of such an assault was foreseeable in the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgment for the tenant.
- The court held a landlord may be liable in negligence for tenant injuries caused by third-party criminal acts when inadequate security in common areas makes such harm reasonably foreseeable.
- The court also held that, in the circumstances presented, a lock on the front entrance was part of the landlord’s obligations under the implied warranty of habitability; failure to provide it could support liability for resulting personal injuries.
- The court rejected the argument that the attacker’s conduct necessarily broke causation, treating the assault as within the foreseeable risk created by leaving the common entrance unsecured.

## Legal Principles

- A landlord who retains control over common areas has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect tenants against foreseeable dangers arising from the use of those areas.
- Foreseeability of criminal conduct can be shown by prior crime patterns in the area and prior notice of suspicious activity affecting the premises.
- An intervening criminal act does not bar liability when the criminal harm is the type of risk that made the landlord’s failure to provide security unreasonable.
- The implied warranty of habitability can require conditions consistent with safe residential occupancy and, depending on context, may include basic security measures for common areas such as a functioning lock on an entrance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability where a landlord left a common entrance door without a lock in a high-crime setting, holding that tenants may recover for foreseeable criminal assaults under negligence principles and, on these facts, also under the implied warranty of habitability.


Trentacost v. Brussel, 412 A.2d 436 (N.J. 1980)