Posted by Dawn on November 21, 2000 at 11:48:31:
In Reply to: Re: Sue the criminal, not the landlord. posted by TenantNet on November 20, 2000 at 23:51:57:
While ken and i have agreed on some things in the past, i have to disagree about his leave the landlord alone stance on this one. It would be so easy to pick up and leave but that is not always possible. People here that post don't have the tons of money to move around every time a landlord gets nasty or rude or evasive or blatantly ignores the law and LL's responsibilities under it. the poster made it clear that she's alerted the landlord to this issue BEFORE anything happened and then when it DID and she got the evidence to drive her point home even more, the LL STILL is adverse to replacing the door! (she could've gotten killed, or raped, Ken, ever think of that? but the thought of a knife to the throat is enough to cause some psychological pain for regular folks). I find this outrageous and sad. while landlords may not always be actually walking around with wads of cash in their pockets (but there are a lot that DO, otherwise they wouldn't be owning a building or two - or, in my LL's case, SEVEN) the poster never mentions about getting money from the landlord -- merely to get the LL's help to SECURE the building and make it a bit safer. Is that unreasonable? No. she's not asking for guarantees, just some security, for god's sakes. And it is a tenant's right to have a safe, clean building, no matter what.
: Ken has a few good points in his second paragraph, but he missed the point. Landlords cannot stop every instance of crime, and therefore aren't always liable, but it's a question of negligence. If the facts show negligence, whether the crime could be foreseen and his lack of reasonable action, then there may be a case. If the lock was jimmied, that's not negligence. If the front door was left unlocked for extensive periods despite notice and complaints, there may be a case. These are difficult legal questions and an attorney should be consulted to see if the elelements of negligence are sufficient to establish liability. This is not about deep pocketing a landlord (funny, the poster never mentioned anything like that). It's about making the building safer and to establish liability. There's nothing wrong with trying to seek such a solution if it's warranted.
: : Prez is incorrect in his legal assertions here. The person who should be sanctioned here is the criminal who mugged you, not the landlord, who had nothing to do with your mugging. Contrary to what some may think, landlords generally are not "deep pockets" and one can expect a landlord to fight tooth and nail against a negligence case, especially when the problem was obviously not carried out by the landlord, so therefore many lawyers won't take them on a contigency fee basis.
: : The best solution in the face of this crime is to realize that it is not yoru fault, and to refuse to be a victim. Minimize your risk by not carrying valuables/large amount of money with you. Consider acquiring a gun and learning how to use it if you feel you may face this situation again. If you must, move to a building that offers incresed security.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup