## Facts

- Inishmaan Associates Limited Partnership owned the Osprey Landing apartment complex in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and JCM Management Company managed the property.
- Kristin Ward lived in a unit adjacent to tenant Merry Sommers, separated by a common wall.
- Over several years, Sommers and Ward had repeated conflicts, including offensive comments, banging on the shared wall, and Sommers’ recurring complaints to management about Ward.
- Ward regularly complained to management about Sommers’ conduct; Sommers likewise complained to management about Ward.
- In March 2002, Sommers pushed Ward’s car door into Ward while Ward was removing her son from a car seat; police did not pursue criminal charges.
- On July 12, 2002, Sommers assaulted Ward outside Ward’s apartment and stabbed her multiple times; Ward’s son witnessed the attack.
- Sommers was arrested and charged with attempted murder but died before the criminal case proceeded to trial.
- Ward sued the owner and manager for negligence for failing to protect her from Sommers and for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
- A jury returned a verdict for Ward; the trial court denied defendants’ directed verdict motion on negligence and denied summary judgment on the habitability claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord and property manager owed a tenant a duty to protect her from a criminal assault by another tenant under New Hampshire law.
2. Whether the implied warranty of habitability requires a landlord to provide security or protect tenants from criminal attacks by other tenants absent an express undertaking.
3. Whether expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care for the defendants’ alleged negligent property management.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the denial of a directed verdict on negligence to the extent the claim depended on a duty to protect Ward from Sommers’ criminal assault.
- The court held no duty existed because neither recognized exception applied: (1) no landlord-created or known defective physical condition enhanced the risk of criminal attack, and (2) defendants did not voluntarily undertake to provide security.
- The court reversed the denial of summary judgment on the implied warranty of habitability claim, holding that the warranty does not include a duty to provide protection from criminal attacks absent an express undertaking.
- The court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its duty and habitability rulings.
- The expert-testimony argument did not change the outcome because the dispositive defect in Ward’s primary theories was the absence of a legal duty.

## Legal Principles

- Landlords generally have no duty to protect tenants from criminal acts of third parties absent limited, recognized “special circumstances.”
- A duty may arise if the landlord creates or is responsible for a known defective physical condition of the premises that foreseeably increases the risk of criminal attack.
- A duty may also arise if the landlord voluntarily assumes responsibility to provide security and then performs that undertaking negligently; routine management and complaint-handling alone do not constitute such an undertaking.
- The implied warranty of habitability concerns providing premises that are safe, sanitary, and fit for human habitation and does not, without an express promise, require landlords to provide security against criminal assaults.
- The existence and scope of a duty are questions of law for the court; expert testimony is not a substitute for an absent legal duty.

## Conclusion

The court limited landlord liability for tenant-on-tenant criminal assaults to cases involving a defective physical condition that increases risk or a landlord’s voluntary assumption of security duties, and it rejected using the implied warranty of habitability to impose a general obligation to protect tenants from criminal attacks.


Ward v. Inishmaan Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 156 N.H. 22, 931 A.2d 1235 (N.H. 2007)