|
3803 REVIEW DENIED In determining whether a landlord has a duty to protect a tenant from criminal assault on the premises, a court should balance the burden connected with the specific act plaintiff claims the landlord had a duty to perform against the foreseeability of the harm that occurred; even slight foreseeability resulting from a prior aborted intrusion into premises was sufficient to justify imposing on the landlord the slight duty to replace a missing window pane in the entry door; a murderer's testimony that he would not have entered the premises if a pane of glass had not been missing from the entry door creates a question of fact regarding a causal relationship between the landlord's failure to replace the missing window and the murder of a tenant.CitationVASQUEZ v RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENTS (Missing Window) 118 CA4 269 [See: Ann M v Pacific Plaza 6 C4 666, T/AT 2/94; Sharon P v Arman 21 C4 1181, T/AT 1/00; Hassoon v. Shamieh 89 CA4 1191, T/AT 7/01; Saelzler v Advanced 25 C4 763 T/AT 6/01]
|
|
