Real Estate & Property Law

Security Lighting - How Important is It?

This question was passed to me at a seminar today and it is on an important topic.

"I am a single middle aged woman and live alone. The walkways leading to my unit are quite dark, and I feel that more lighting is needed. I do not feel safe at night walking to my unit. I have asked the Board to install more lighting in the common area by my unit, but they refuse, saying if they put it in for me, they will have to put it in for everyone. What is their responsibility?"

This scenario is very similar to one in a leading case in California, Frances T vs. Village Green. Its an older case decision that has withstood the test of time as binding authority. It was raised in the recent case Ritter vs. Churchill which is discussed in a recent blog, where the court pointed out that an HOA/Board can be responsible when safety issues are involved on the same plane as a landlord.

In the case (out of the Supreme Court of California), FRANCES T. v. VILLAGE GREEN OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Sept. 4, 1986, the condominium unit owner brought an action against the condominium owner's association and individual members of its board of directors for negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty regarding quite serious injuries she sustained when she was attacked in her condominium unit.

The Court held (among other findings) that: "(1) plaintiff stated an actionable cause of negligence against association for its failure to provide adequate lighting in common areas; (2) plaintiff stated a cause of action for negligence against directors for their failure to take action to avoid harm and for taking actions contributing to risk of injury to residents."

Let this case be a lesson. In the case, the owner asked the Board to put up security lighting.The Board refused. The owner put up some lights and the Board "ordered her to remove them because they were placed in areas subject to association's exclusive authority. The owner was shortly thereafter the subject of a brutal act which which occurred in her unit.

The HOA and the directors were found culpable in Frances T. The court likened the duty of the Board to that of a landlord. Since there had been a burglary in the development, there was foreseeability that criminal activity might occur.

Although one would like to believe that Boards cannot be held responsible for criminal acts of third parties, or for preventing them, they are responsible for dealing reasonably with a safety issue or potential hazard, whatever that might be. They are not expected to hide in the bushes and ward off criminals, and probably are not required to hire and pay for security, but improving lighting in the common area to make residents feel more safe??? That does not seem like an unreasonable request. At the least, it may also help to prevent accidents.

That said, I must offer a cavaet. I would not profess to give legal advice to this association one way or the other, or say the Board is right or wrong, without knowing other pertinent factors such as - do other residents feel the same way? Is the person that is asking prone unnecessarily or unreasonably to fear? Is there existing lighting that the Board feels is adequate? Has there been any criminal activity reported in the neighborhood? Are there people hanging around that do not belong in the Association? Is it a long walk from the parking areas to the units? Are there lots of bushes where someone might be able to hide?

These are all pertinent questions that go directly to the issue of whether there is any "foreseeability" that there might be a crime if the area remains in its current "lit" (or "unlit" state? And they are important ones.

Full post as published by California Condo & HOA Law on September 20, 2008 (boomark / email).