Security firm not liable for injuries suffered by a client’s tenant

Crump v. Wright & Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Civil Action No. CL-08-3512 (Richmond Cir. Ct. March 4, 2009 )- In the matter of Crump v. Wright & Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond held that a security firm does not have a duty to tenants residing in a client’s property. Relying upon the Virginia Supreme Court’s holding in Holles v. Sunrise Terrace, Inc., 257 Va. 131, 509 S.E.2d 494 (1999), the court held that though a security firm may exert control over a property, it does not have the same duty as the landlord. The court further noted that while a landlord has a general duty to ensure that its property is not possessed of latent defects which may injure its tenants, even landlords are not required to ensure tenant safety. Instead, the court noted that, as held by the Virginia Court in Yuzefovsky v. St. John's Wood Apartments, 261 Va. 97, 102, 540 S.E.2d 134, 136 (2001), a special duty arises only when a landlord or another with the ability and authority to control a property knows that a specific tenant is subject to a specific risk of injury.

A negligent owner of an abandoned property may be liable for damages caused by squatters

Fireman’s Insurance Co. v. Bayou Properties, LLC, Civil Action No. CL08-5001, (Richmond Cir. Ct. March 20, 2009 )- In contrast to the Crump ruling described above, the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond held in Fireman’s Insurance Co. v. Bayou Properties, LLC, that a land owner does have a duty to secure an abandoned property and may be found liable for injuries caused by squatters occupying an unsecured structure. In Fireman’s Insurance, a landowner failed to secure an abandoned property in spite of being repeatedly cited and instructed by City officials to do so. It was known that squatters regularly occupied the property. Eventually, one of the squatters caused the abandoned building to catch fire resulting in damage to a neighboring building. The Fireman’s Insurance court conceded that a landowner typically is not required to protect against injuries caused by third parties. However, the court qualified this general rule by noting that where a failure to secure an abandoned property violates a local ordinance, the owner may be liable. Because the damages allegedly arose out of the landowner defendant’s failure to secure the property, the court did not dismiss the case.