You are here: / / Attack on Plaintiff Upon Leaving Defendant-Lodge’s Premises Not Foreseeable—Landowner...

Attack on Plaintiff Upon Leaving Defendant-Lodge’s Premises Not Foreseeable—Landowner Had No Duty to Take Measures to Protect Against the Attack—Evidence Lodge Is Located in a “High Crime” Area Insufficient to Render Such an Attack Foreseeable

The Third Department determined the landowner did not have a duty to take measures to protect plaintiff who was assaulted and stabbed after leaving defendant’s fraternal lodge, even though there was evidence the lodge was located in a “high crime” area.  The evidence of prior crimes at the premises was not sufficient to render the attack on plaintiff foreseeable:

Landowners have a duty of reasonable care to maintain their property in a safe condition; although they “have a common-law duty to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property, including the criminal acts of third parties, they are not the insurers of a visitor’s safety” … . Notably, “even where there is an extensive history of criminal conduct on the premises, the landowner cannot be held to a duty to take protective measures unless it is shown that he or she either knows or has reason to know from past experience that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor” … . “The scope of the duty varies with the foreseeability of the potential harm” … . Stated another way, “no duty is imposed to protect . . . against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” …, and “landowners have a duty to control third persons only when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . Prior crimes need not be identical to a present crime in order to put a landowner on notice; “the inquiry of foreseeability depends upon the location, nature and extent of those previous criminal activities and their similarity, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question” … . Finally, although foreseeability is generally an issue to be resolved by the factfinder, it may be determined as a matter of law where the facts are undisputed and permit only one inference to be drawn therefrom … . Milton v IBPOE The World Forest city Lodge, #180, 2014 NY Slip Op 07242, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

You might also like
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD MISINTERPRETED SPECIAL CONSIDERATION 4 TO LIMIT SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG TO 10% (THIRD DEPT).
Request to File Late Notice of Claim Against School District Stemming from Alleged Sexual Abuse of the Plaintiff by a Teacher Should Not Have Been Granted—School Did Not Have Actual Notice—No Good Reason for Delay in Filing
REPORTER WHO INTERVIEWED A MURDER SUSPECT WAS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PREVENTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT THE SUSPECT’S TRIAL; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 79-H, THE NEW YORK SHIELD LAW, WHICH PROTECTS REPORTERS FROM SUBPOENAS WHEN THE REPORTER’S TESTIMONY IS NOT “CRITICAL OR NECESSARY” TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE (THIRD DEPT).
DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED.
Statute of Limitations Defense in Article 78 Proceeding Waived Because Not Raised in Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss
BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.
THE COURT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT PROCURED BY THE PEOPLE AFTER A MISTRIAL, THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS A NULLITY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Summary Judgment Admitting Will to Probate Appropriate Where Objections to the Will (“Testamentary Capacity” and “Undue Influence”) Not Supported

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“But For” Causation Element of Tortious Interference with Contract... Elements of Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process Explained