stating that “[a]s a landowner, the State must act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[a]s a landowner, the State must act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk”
- housing authority, as a landlord, owed duty to provide locks for budding entrances where tenant was sexually assaulted by an intruder in the housing project
- holding “landlord has a duty to maintain minimal security measures ... in the face of foreseeable criminal intrusion ...”
- where there had been reports of men in unauthorized areas of a women's dormitory, and there was thus "a reasonably foreseeable likelihood of criminal intrusion into the building," as operator of the housing, the state was negligent in failing to keep the outer doors locked and was therefore liable for injuries suffered when a student was raped in the laundry room of the dormitory; in this capacity, the state "is held to the same duty as private landlords in the maintenance of physical security devices in the building... ."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Kaye, J.
(concurring). While concurring in result, I write to emphasize my understanding that the imposition of liability upon the State in the circumstances presented is not a departure from Bass v City of New York ( 32 NY2d 894 ) or Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. (55 NY2d 175). The allocation of police resources remains a legislative executive decision. Although a commercial entity engaged in a particular activity may be required to furnish security guards, a governmental agency performing that same activity does not have the same obligation to assign police. (Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 NY2d 175, 182, supra.)
But governmental agencies acting as landlords are not exonerated from responsibility to furnish any security to their tenants. Liability is properly imposed in this case because of the policy adopted by the State, as landlord, of having all entrances to the dormitory unlocked at all *515 times, despite an open campus and reported criminal incidents. We do not decide whether the State similarly would be liable for a failure to keep all dormitory doors locked at all times. With several thousand students living in 27 dormitories at Stony Brook alone, each dormitory presumably having several entrances, that would be a truly onerous — if not impossible — obligation for any security force, involving the allocation of police resources.
Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur with Chief Judge Cooke; Judge Kaye concurs in result in a separate opinion.
Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein.