When Behl failed to change the locks or retrieve the key from Cerny after he moved out, she satisfied the factors of the relationship between parties and the opportunity to exercise care under the full duty analysis. Behl kicked Cerny out sometime in August 2013 and rented the same apartment to Copeland-Kraft August 30, 2013. Behl did not recall retrieving the key from Cerny. Behl knew that Cerny was violent, as he had pushed her before during an argument. When there is foreseeable criminal activity and the landlord fails to secure the premises, a duty of care is owed. Trentacost, 82 N.J. 214.
Like in Hopkins, a broker and an invitee, Behl owes a duty of care to Copeland-Kraft, because Behl would qualify as an occupier, who rented the apartment for the purpose of profit to Copeland-Kraft. (CITE) Behl knew she had not taken measures to secure the apartment and was aware that Cerny may be violent, similar to Trentacost, where an assault was foreseeable within the apartment premises as the entrance was not secure. (id. #) However, in Clohesy, there was a series of criminal activity around the premises, there is no evidence that there was criminal activity around Behl’s apartment. 149 N.J. 496. Behl initially collected a fee, making her more of a business owner, where in Peguero, the defendants acted more like a host. 439 N.J. Super. 77. …show more content…
439 N.J. Super. 77. Copeland-Kraft may argue that although the pistol-punch from Cerny may not of been foreseeable, his violent conduct would have been, as the court ruled in Clohesy where although a murder had not taken place prior, criminal activity had, therefore, it is of the duty of the landlord to secure its premises.
Like in Hopkins, a broker and an invitee, Behl owes a duty of care to Copeland-Kraft, because Behl would qualify as an occupier, who rented the apartment for the purpose of profit to Copeland-Kraft. (CITE) Behl knew she had not taken measures to secure the apartment and was aware that Cerny may be violent, similar to Trentacost, where an assault was foreseeable within the apartment premises as the entrance was not secure. (id. #) However, in Clohesy, there was a series of criminal activity around the premises, there is no evidence that there was criminal activity around Behl’s apartment. 149 N.J. 496. Behl initially collected a fee, making her more of a business owner, where in Peguero, the defendants acted more like a host. 439 N.J. Super. 77. …show more content…
439 N.J. Super. 77. Copeland-Kraft may argue that although the pistol-punch from Cerny may not of been foreseeable, his violent conduct would have been, as the court ruled in Clohesy where although a murder had not taken place prior, criminal activity had, therefore, it is of the duty of the landlord to secure its premises.