Master Key Cannot Unlock Notice

The duty of a landlord to protect tenants from criminal acts hinges upon whether the act could be foreseen. Here, the Michigan Court of Appeals declined to extend that duty despite the Defendants providing a way for their former employee to access others’ apartments. Their reasoning hinges on the lack of notice – the former employee was let go for performance reasons, not anything related to theft or dishonesty. Defendants had no notice the employee had any tendency to this type of behavior, and no reason to suspect that she would participate in it.

This ruling is important as it emphasizes the role of foreseeability to the landlord. Defendants certainly had notice that illegal activity was occurring on the property, but that is not enough to impute liability; the law’s protection will extend to the landlord without any specificity. If the former employee had been fired for theft from apartments and they allowed her to continue residing, it is possible this case would have survived summary disposition as Defendants would have been on notice that she tended to act in this manner. But with no reason to suspect their former employee, the limited duty protected Defendants and the lower court’s ruling was affirmed.