Ivy Hill Property example essay topic

Victims of crime are seeking compensation from the owners and managers of properties on which crime takes place with increasing frequency. In these court cases, commonly known as premises liability cases, juries are being told that the crime was the result of a perpetrator's ability to take advantage of a lack of security in a certain building or property. (Nolo, 2002) In Kuzmicz vs. Ivy Hill Parks Apt case, the N.J. Supreme Court "addresses whether a landlord has a duty to protect its tenant by mending a bordering fence or warning him of the risk of assault on property adjacent to, but not owned by, the landlord". The public has a significant interest in having these cases resolved in a manner that is fair, just, and reasonable. The Court held that "under the facts, Ivy Hill did not owe a duty to its tenant by mending its fence or warning of the possibility of criminal assault on property owned by the Board".

Negligence is one of the most important fields of tort law as it governs most activities of our society. In a nutshell, Corley, Reed, Shedd, Moorehead mentions, (1999) that to establish negligence one must show: " (a) existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (b) unreasonable behavior by the defendant that breaches the duty; (c) causation in fact; (d) proximate causation; and (e) an actual injury". (P. 206) There is no logical rationale for keeping an injured plaintiff from any recovery simply because of some slight negligence, while allowing the other negligent party to avoid responsibility completely. Such a rule is contrary to the principle of personal responsibility. A historical rationale for negligence dating back to 1876 in Manly vs. Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, expressed that "the injured party brought the injury upon himself".

The trial court makes the plaintiff absorb 20 percent of the liability because the evidence revealed the defendant's alleged carelessness could have been a substantial, material factor in bringing about the injury. Thus answering the first case question. The Supreme Court further affirms by assigning some blame to the plaintiff, "For his own convenience, he chose not to use the public sidewalks. Instead, he took a shortcut across the Board's property. Although his injuries are regrettable, they are not the result of Ivy Hill's fault". (Kuzmicz vs. Ivy Hill) "Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done". (Blyth vs. Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex. 781) The law judges all persons according to one standard. It does not matter if the defendant is not a rocket scientist. A judge is not allowed to use his or her standards on a given situation, complete with the judge's weaknesses and biases. Instead, the judge must use the standard of the "reasonable man".

Perhaps that is why, in negligence cases, which go before a jury, the judge cannot tell the jury to ask themselves if "they would have acted differently", but "how would the reasonable person have acted". (Alexander, 2003) This principle of reasonableness extends itself to factual situations on the Kuzmicz case. For example, the Court asserts "imposing on a landlord a duty to pay a tenant for injuries sustained in a criminal attack on another's property obviously helps to compensate the tenant. The imposition of the duty, however, transfers from one property owner to another the duty to compensate for injuries sustained on the property of the first owner". The Court also implies that the outcome would have been different if it happened in the ivy Hill property, thus answering the second case question, "We likewise have imposed liability on a landlord who provides inadequate security for common areas of rental premises for the failure to prevent a criminal assault on a tenant".

(Kuzmicz vs. Ivy Hill) In summary, compliance with customs, such as professional customs, generally will exonerate a defendant as it provides excellent proof of what is "reasonable" conduct. Defendants and plaintiffs alike benefit from fairness and equity under the laws eyes.

Bibliography

Corley, R.N., Reed, O.L., Shedd, P.J., Morehead, & Morehead, J.W. (1999).
The Legal and Regulatory Environment of Business. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Alexander, R. Esq. (2003) The Legal Environment of Business, Law 529 class notes.
Nolo, Inc (2002);
Landlord Liability for Criminal Acts and Activities, Retrieved September 2, 2003 from web Blyth vs.
Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex.
781. Manly vs. Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, 74 N.C. 655,659 (1876).