# Scialabba v. Brandise Construction Co.

> Nevada Supreme Court · August 16, 1996 · 112 Nev. 965

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529940

## Case

- **Full name:** PENNY R. SCIALABBA, Appellant, v. BRANDISE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Respondent
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 16, 1996
- **Citations:** 112 Nev. 965; 921 P.2d 928; 1996 Nev. LEXIS 129
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Springer
- **Judges:** Shearing, Springer, Young, Rose
- **Cited by:** 64 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529940

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that a construction company owed a duty of care to a tenant who was assaulted by someone hiding in an unlocked apartment, where the company was in charge of locking up the apartment
- noting that special relationships have been found in cases of “landowner-invitee, businessman-patron, employer-employee, school district-pupil, hospital-patient, and carrier-passenger”

## Opinion text

Springer, J.,
with whom, Steffen, C. J., agrees, dissenting:
I dissent because I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that “the alleged failure to lock the doors to vacant apartments created a foreseeable risk” that an assailant would use the unlocked apartments as an opportunity to leap out and unprovok-edly attack passersby. I do not see this risk as being foreseeable under the circumstances of this case. See Doe v. Linder Const. Co., Inc., 845 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. 1992), cited in the majority opinion and which agrees with my position.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9529940. Public record. Not legal advice.