Condo liability to non-residents

In the course of some unrelated legal research I came across the following 1997 Arizona Supreme Court opinion holding that a condo association can be held liable for failing to provide safety in common areas even to non-residents. This should be of interest to those on condo BOD’s.

The underlying facts were that a condo association in Phoenix had a security guard on duty overnight. The association had determined it could not afford more than one shift of security even after being advised of the need for a second shift. One evening about an hour before the guard came on duty, a guest of one of the residents was shot dead in the parking lot by “a group of local ruffians.”

The family of the deceased sued the condo association for negligence. Both the trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the association was not liable because it owed no duty to a non-resident. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed those decisions, finding that a condo association has the same duty to maintain safety in its common areas that a landlord would have in public areas of an apartment complex.

The entire opinion in Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Association Inc can be found at
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1361169.html
or by clicking here.

I sometimes read these decisions out of curiosity. Reading this one-

This decision is limited to a reversal of a summary judgement by a lower court. A summary judgment (as far as I understand it as a lawyer) means that the judge believes that there is no basis is law for the lawsuit or that even in the most favorable interpretation of facts there is no way the lawsuit could be successful.

"When reviewing a decision to grant summary judgment, we review the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant."

The appeals court did not agree that summary judgement was warranted, and wrote:

"The record in this case provides sufficient evidence from which a jury could find negligence and causation.   Accordingly, summary judgment was improper."  

This means that the case goes back to the lower court and must be tried.

"It may be that increased security patrols, better fencing, calls for police control, or other measures might have prevented injury.   This question of causation in fact is, of course, one especially for the jury."

So the case has not been won by the plaintiff. So far, it has not been lost.

Fred:

These opinions are frustrating because we do not know what the ultimate outcome was. The court ruled only that the plaintiff could recover damages on a theory that the condo association was negligent in not providing a security guard. Whether a jury ever found those facts is not known.

You wrote: "A summary judgment (as far as I understand it as a lawyer) means that the judge believes that there is no basis is law for the lawsuit or that even in the most favorable interpretation of facts there is no way the lawsuit could be successful." What you have described is known as failure to state a claim. In that situation, even if all the plaintiff's facts were true he would still have no basis for judgment in his favor. For example: The BOD of my condo decides to repave the driveway but I sue because I do not think it needs to be done; because the BOD has the right to make that decision I have failed to state a claim.

A summary judgement means that the trial court reached a judgment without a trial because the facts were not disputed and the law (as interpretted by the trial judge) gives one party or the other a right to judgment based on those facts. For example, if you sued me to collect a debt and I admitted before trial that I do in fact owe you, there is no need for a trial as you are entitled to the judgement.

The trial court ruled in favor of the condo association based on the association's assertion that it owed no duty to non-members. That court also rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the condo owed a duty to everyone who lawfully enters the common areas. The AZ Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded it for trial. Since this opinion was issued in 1997, trial was likely held long ago but there is no easy way of finding out who ultimately won or lost.

I think it's best to say that the HOA has a duty to anyone who lawfully enters the common areas.

For another circumstance that would fall under this, think of the playgrounds. Although a condo playground is on private property, it is required to meet the same standards of a public playground in California (that's my understanding).

That means what may be fine for a single-family residence, will not pass health and safety standards for a condo facility. Should a child be injured on a condo playground, and the facility doesn't meet California standards, then I believe the condo HOA would have legal liability, whether or not the child was a resident or non-resident.

This is my understanding, however, I know that our HOA hasn't paid any attention to my request for an inspector and cost analysis of fulfilling the health and safety codes.