PERSONAL INJURY | PREMISES LIABILITY | LANDLORD LIABILITY | FLORIDA LAW UPDATE
A Florida appeals court ruled that landlords can be held liable for violent crimes committed off their property when they allow known dangerous conditions like drug dealing to flourish on their premises.
Published: September 2, 2026
Case: Bartley Investments, Ltd. v. Menendez, No. 2D2024-1001
Court: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: December 19, 2024
The Applicable Law
Under Florida law, property owners generally have no duty to control third parties or prevent them from harming others. However, this rule changes when a defendant’s conduct creates a “foreseeable zone of risk” that poses a general threat of harm to others.
As the Florida Supreme Court explained in McCain v. Florida Power Corp., “Where a defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.”
Key Legal Rule: A landlord may owe a duty to protect others from third-party criminal acts when the landlord allows a known dangerous condition to exist on their property and has the means to correct it but fails to do so.
The duty element focuses on whether the defendant’s conduct foreseeably created a broader zone of risk, not whether they could foresee the specific injury that occurred. For proximate cause, courts examine “whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.”
What Happened in This Case
According to the facts described in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff owned a townhome in a residential community. In July 2021, a homeless man named Turner broke into her fenced courtyard, beat her, slammed her head into the ground, and attempted to rape her. Turner was subsequently arrested, charged, and convicted of battery and attempted rape.
The evidence described in the court’s opinion showed that Turner frequented a townhome owned by the defendant, a small family-owned real estate investment company. The record reflected that people were living in the defendant’s townhome who may or may not have been authorized tenants. According to testimony, these residents were dealing drugs from the property.
The allegations in the case stated that the defendant had received multiple complaints from the homeowners’ association about drug dealing and excessive traffic at their townhome. The evidence described in the court’s opinion included letters from the homeowners’ association warning that the activities were “a threat to the safety of the Association’s residents and disturb[ed] the peace, quiet, and enjoyment of the community.”
According to witness testimony described in the opinion, neighbors observed drug deals, syringes, and even an overdose at the defendant’s property. One neighbor testified that she had called the defendant’s representative to complain about the drug activity, but “he cursed her out and hung up on her.”
The Court’s Analysis
Duty to Prevent Known Dangerous Conditions
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that it owed no duty because the attack occurred off its property. The court explained that “the issue is not whether [the defendant] had a duty to prevent the criminal actions of Turner or the duty to protect others from injuries occurring off of its property. The issue is whether [the defendant] was liable for allowing a known dangerous condition to flourish in the townhome when it had the means to evict the residents.”
The court cited a California case where Judge Stone wrote in dissent: “The case was not about an assault occurring off the landowner’s property but was instead about ‘a landowner’s liability in allowing an alleged known dangerous condition to flourish on its property, which, it is alleged, proximately caused a deadly injury off his property.'”
Key Distinction: The location where the injury occurs is less important than whether the defendant allowed a dangerous condition to exist on their property that foreseeably led to harm elsewhere.
Foreseeability of Violence from Drug Activity
The defendant argued that drug dealing couldn’t foreseeably lead to sexual assault. The court disagreed, noting that the evidence showed violence was inherent in the drug activity at the property.
According to the court’s opinion, Turner testified that the defendant’s townhome was a “drug hole” and that “in his experience, it was common to have drug dealing, fighting, and theft at such places.” The record reflected that Turner had gotten into a fight at the defendant’s townhome just before attacking the plaintiff.
The court noted that “courts around the country acknowledge that violence is inherent in drug transactions” and that Turner testified “it was only a matter of time before someone got hurt” based on what was happening at the property.
Tenant vs. Squatter Distinction Irrelevant
The defendant argued it couldn’t be liable because the drug dealers were squatters, not tenants. The court found this distinction irrelevant, explaining that “in either scenario, [the defendant] still allowed a known dangerous condition to exist (that is, drug use and drug deals), had the means to correct it, and yet failed to do so.”
The evidence described in the court’s opinion showed that the defendant’s representative was seen with the residents on multiple occasions and that “it appeared to others in the community that the [defendant’s] townhome residents had permission to be there.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue my landlord if someone attacks me off the property?
Generally, landlords aren’t responsible for crimes that happen away from their property. However, this case shows that if your landlord allows dangerous conditions like drug dealing to exist on their property, and those conditions lead to violence that harms you elsewhere, you may have a claim. The key is whether the landlord knew about the dangerous condition and had the power to fix it but failed to act.
What makes a condition “dangerous” enough to create liability?
According to this court’s analysis, ongoing drug dealing creates a foreseeable zone of risk because violence is inherent in drug transactions. The court noted that “drug holes” commonly involve “drug dealing, fighting, and theft.” If a property owner knows about continuous criminal activity that typically involves violence, they may have a duty to take action to protect others in the community.
Do I have to prove the landlord knew about the specific type of crime that happened to me?
No. Florida law states that “it is immaterial that the defendant could not foresee the precise manner in which the injury occurred or its exact extent.” You need to show that the landlord’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk, not that they could predict the exact crime that would occur.
What if the dangerous tenants were squatters, not legal tenants?
This case establishes that it doesn’t matter whether the dangerous individuals were legal tenants or unauthorized squatters. As the court explained, “whether the residents were tenants or squatters did not matter because the known dangerous condition existed in either case.” What matters is that the property owner had the means to remove them and failed to do so.
How do I prove the landlord knew about the dangerous condition?
You’ll need evidence that the landlord was on notice of the problem. In this case, that evidence included complaint letters from the homeowners’ association, direct calls from neighbors, and testimony that the landlord was seen at the property during drug activity. Documentation like police reports, neighbor complaints, and association violations can all help establish the landlord’s knowledge.
Cases involving landlord liability for off-property crimes are complex and require careful analysis of duty, foreseeability, and proximate cause. The law in this area continues to evolve, and success often depends on gathering the right evidence to show the property owner knew about dangerous conditions and had the power to address them.
If you’ve been injured by criminal activity that you believe stems from a landlord’s failure to address known dangerous conditions on their property, you need experienced legal representation to navigate these challenging claims.
Contact Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC today for a free consultation.
Case Reference
Bartley Investments, Ltd. v. Menendez, No. 2D2024-1001 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 19, 2024)
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This blog post is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law is subject to change, and the application of legal principles varies depending on the specific facts of each case. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should consult a licensed Florida attorney. This post discusses legal concepts and principles addressed in the cited court opinion and context of that opinion. It is not intended to make any assertions about the truth of any allegations or evidence relating to any party to that case.
Citations & Sources
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992)
- Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1989)
- Johnson v. Howard Mark Prods., Inc., 608 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Bing v. Alachua County, 392 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Medina v. Hillshore Partners, Inc., 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)
- Gouty v. Schnepel, 795 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2001)
- Wells v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, 659 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1995)
Source URL: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2482835/opinion/Opinion_2024-1001.pdf
