Landlord Negligence

[954Rental]

Now, an assumption of the risk theory was mentioned earlier if the OP knew the garage was damaged. I think the elements of that would not apply. If I go into a McDonalds in a sketchy area where some hooligans are milling about the front door, that McDonalds will still have the same duty to me if a crime were to happen by a third party as to if I walked into the finest McDonalds in the land. The sketchy McDonalds may have to take more steps to protect from breaching that duty if there have been criminal acts done by the hooligans in the past, but the fact I made the choice to go into the sketchy McD's does not mean I assumed the risk.

terrible analogy. You are assuming risk when you go into an environment that you foresee as sketchy and possibly dangerous. You'd also be stupid to go in. You are risking your life. You don't have to go into that McDonald's, if you are hungry there are many other places to go.

 

[tranquility]

I see your point on this, but I don't think it's a good analogy. A better analogy may be that of believing the area that you leave your expensive item to be secured against thievery by way of a large, locked gate. The only reason you'd consider leaving your expensive item there is because of the safety that gate provides. But, one day, that gate is broken and left open, yet you still leave your expensive item there.

Absent tacit agreement, for assumption of the risk in a situation like this the danger must be patently obvious. It is not going to be patently obvious a bike will be stolen when it is locked on a bike rack even if the normally secured garage it is in has a broken gate.

 

[tranquility]

terrible analogy. You are assuming risk when you go into an environment that you foresee as sketchy and possibly dangerous. You'd also be stupid to go in. You are risking your life. You don't have to go into that McDonald's, if you are hungry there are many other places to go.

It is a legally accurate analogy. Stupid is a different forum.

 

[Zigner]

Absent tacit agreement, for assumption of the risk in a situation like this the danger must be patently obvious. It is not going to be patently obvious a bike will be stolen when it is locked on a bike rack even if the normally secured garage it is in has a broken gate.

In this case, the only reason the bike was parked there was because of the security provided by the gate.

 

[tranquility]

In this case, the only reason the bike was parked there was because of the security provided by the gate.

The victim's reason is not the key. It is not inherently dangerous to leave a bike locked to a bike rack.

Recall edit:
That being said, another post earlier mentioned there was probably a clause in the lease saying management is not liable for losses for parking in the garage. Like a sign saying "Enter at your own risk", that clause might be enough to give an assumption of the risk defense to the landlord if there was not a special contractual duty for saying the garage was "secure".

Looking things up edit:
I don't see it in Washington cases, but in CA, it seems there is a "secondary" assumption of the risk theory that might fit based on comparative negligence doctrine. (Read the case, there is a lot of discussion explaining what would and would not be primary and secondary assumption of the risk.)

Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992)

[I looked for an easy quote to pull out in explanation of how it worked, but there were too many frolics and detours to really get a good one.]

 

[davew128]

$2K? Pffft...I have used frames worth more than that.

No kidding. I used to own a Trek Madone 5.9 which retailed for about $5,500 10 years ago. Any decent recreational bike worth riding is easily $2k.

 

[BunniD]

But I wonder where this bike is kept. Was it locked up, was it outside was it in a garage?

The bicycle was locked to a series of metal bike racks provided by the property, inside of the gated parking garage. It is a designated bicycle storage area behind the "controlled access" gate that was left open.

 

[BunniD]

The victim's reason is not the key. It is not inherently dangerous to leave a bike locked to a bike rack.

Recall edit:
That being said, another post earlier mentioned there was probably a clause in the lease saying management is not liable for losses for parking in the garage. Like a sign saying "Enter at your own risk", that clause might be enough to give an assumption of the risk defense to the landlord if there was not a special contractual duty for saying the garage was "secure".

To clarify, there are no signs referring to risks etc. There is a clause in the lease agreement stating the property's insurance does not cover resident's personal property.

 

[Zigner]

The bicycle was locked to a series of metal bike racks provided by the property, inside of the gated parking garage. It is a designated bicycle storage area behind the "controlled access" gate that was left open.

Why did he leave the bike there knowing the gate didn't work?

 

[Silverplum]

Why did he leave the bike there knowing the gate didn't work?

Why is this still an active thread? Q&A&A&A&A&A&A&A&A&A&A?

 

[single317dad]

Not really. As I said before, the value of the bike is not really relevant to the legal issues. It is conversion if a person steals a $10 bike I left out on the porch, just as it is if I left out a $1,000 bike. While conversion is an intentional tort, negligence is the same way. If there is a duty and that duty is breached, if the breach causes damages we have negligence. Now, we might claim extra steps should be taken with a more expensive item, but it does not really change the underlying issues.

If a new driver is driving along and looks at a pretty girl on the corner (Forgetting we tend to drive towards where we look. Remember your early driving days checking the blind spot?) tapping on the vehicle in the next lane, he is going to be liable for the damages because he's negligent. The issues do not change if the pretty girl is driving the car he taps. The issues do not change if the car she is driving is a Ferrari and the new driver is looking at the car and not the girl. Personally, it scares me a bit that a fender bender that is my fault with an average car might cost me hundreds while a fender bender with a Ferrari could cost me tens of thousands. It doesn't seem fair and there should be some way to minimize the risk of my negligence to reasonably foreseeable damages. But, the forseeability issue gets to duty and not to damages. (aka eggshell plaintiff) There is no shifting of blame for my negligence just because the beauty of the vehicle I hit increased the chance I would hit it.

If there is negligence on the part of the landlord, it is going to be negligence even if a prudent person might have brought up the bike to his room.

Now, an assumption of the risk theory was mentioned earlier if the OP knew the garage was damaged. I think the elements of that would not apply. If I go into a McDonalds in a sketchy area where some hooligans are milling about the front door, that McDonalds will still have the same duty to me if a crime were to happen by a third party as to if I walked into the finest McDonalds in the land. The sketchy McDonalds may have to take more steps to protect from breaching that duty if there have been criminal acts done by the hooligans in the past, but the fact I made the choice to go into the sketchy McD's does not mean I assumed the risk.

I didn't base my opinion on the value of the bicycle. The value was mentioned because it was already a topic, and as a rule people are more protective of a $2000 bike than a $10 bike.

My point was that the tenant was aware of the security breach and chose not to secure their property because "there was no other place". It's a bike. It's a valuable possession. You know it's not secured. Secure it if you want to keep it.

That doesn't excuse the theft, but I believe it shifts liability from the building owner to the tenant absent any restitution from the thief.

BTW, I own a Schwinn Traveler that I paid $15 for (and have put countless dollars into since) which I live and ride several times a week. I secure it in my barn.

Why is this still an active thread?

Because some of us are slower than others

 

[tranquility]

I didn't base my opinion on the value of the bicycle. The value was mentioned because it was already a topic, and as a rule people are more protective of a $2000 bike than a $10 bike.

My point was that the tenant was aware of the security breach and chose not to secure their property because "there was no other place". It's a bike. It's a valuable possession. You know it's not secured. Secure it if you want to keep it.

That doesn't excuse the theft, but I believe it shifts liability from the building owner to the tenant absent any restitution from the thief.

BTW, I own a Schwinn Traveler that I paid $15 for (and have put countless dollars into since) which I live and ride several times a week. I secure it in my barn.



Because some of us are slower than others

That is the theory of secondary assumption of the risk. A doctrine that CA has that I did not see in Washington cases. That's not to say it isn't there as Washington has comparative negligence as well, it is just I did not see it on a quick search. But, if it is OK to lock a $10 bike to a bike rack in a garage with a broken access, it is going to be OK to lock a $1,000 bike there.