Plaintiff Fritzy Rivera was leaving her friend’s apartment at the Cherry Hill Towers apartment complex when she was shot by her estranged husband. He had accessed the apartment complex through an open security gate. The issue in Rivera v. Cherry Hill Towers, LLC, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 142 (App. Div. Dec. 12, 2022) was whether the defendant Vikco, Inc., as the former property management company, could be liable for the shooting based upon the practice that it had established to leave open the security gate after hours.
Vikco was not the property manager at the time of the shooting. However, for 18 years, it served as the property manager for this 434 residential apartment complex. The apartment complex was fully enclosed by a security gate with one central entrance point and three exits. When it was the property manager, Vikco was responsible to ensure the safety of its residents and guests. The complex was sold in October 2018 and when new ownership took over, AION Management assumed all Vikco’s property management duties.
Just seventeen days later, Plaintiff’s estranged husband, Brian Walker, drove through the open security gate at the front entrance at about 11:30 pm to lay in wait for Plaintiff to leave the complex. He confronted her in the parking lot and shot her in the head, chest, and arm.
While Vikco was the property manager, the front gate was unmanned and generally left open during leasing office hours. After hours, which would be after 5pm, the gate was supposed to be closed with access restricted to residents. AION apparently continued Vikco’s practice of leaving the gate unsecured after hours.
Plaintiff Rivera sued Vikco, and other defendants, for alleged negligence in providing security at Cherry Hill Towers, a high crime area, claiming that was the proximate cause of the assault. Vikco filed for a summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable for the assault because its property management contract had ended. The trial court judge denied the motion, finding that it was a jury question as to whether it owed a duty to plaintiff in not taking steps to prevent the assault.
Vikco filed for an interlocutory appeal over this decision and the Appellate Division granted leave for Vikco to appeal. Upon reviewing the appeal, in a published decision, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court ruling, finding that Vikco was entitled to a summary judgment dismissal of the lawsuit.
First, the Appellate Division found that the trial court judge mistakenly found that it was up to the jury to decide whether a duty was owed to Plaintiff. The Court noted that whether a duty is owed to another party is for the court to decide, not the jury. While Vikco was the property manager, Vikco had a duty to prove safe premises by “taking reasonable security precautions to protect [Cherry Hill Towers] tenants and guests from foreseeable criminal acts.”
But, once Vikco was no longer the property manager, it had no relationship with Plaintiff and no ability to exercise control over the complex. The Court found that there was “no public interest in imposing security responsibility upon Vikco for conduct that was under the full control of AION without input from Vikco.”
The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that Vikco should be held responsible for the security measures continued by AION. There were no allegations that any deficiencies in that security system could not have been remedied by AION after it took over as the property manager. Further, Vikco has no contractual obligation as to the management of the property at the time of the assault. It would not have been able to prevent the assault because it was no longer responsible for the safety of Cherry Hill Towers’ residents and guests.
The Court pointed out that New Jersey case law has not addressed “whether an apartment complex’s property manager has a common law duty to residents and their guests to provide a safe environment after the property manager’s duties are discontinued.” The Appellate Division further stated that “[u]nder the circumstances presented, we see no reason to do so now.”
Because it found that Vikco did not owe a duty to Plaintiff when she was assaulted, the Court ruled that Vikco was entitled to a summary judgment. Hence, the trial court judge’s decision was reversed.
