In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of American v. Pratt, No. 41,387-CW. 2006 WL 2741904 (La. App. 2 Cir. Sept. 27, 2006), a Louisiana Court of Appeal ruled that a tenant owed no duty beyond reasonable measures taken to protect her premises against criminal intruders.
Vernadette Pratt leased premises from Joseph and Patricia Costanza for a restaurant called Dette's Concessions. The restaurant shared a common wall with another business in the building, Sal's Men and Boy's Fashions.
An unknown person broke into the rear door of the restaurant and started a fire, which caused extensive damage. The Costanzas and Salvadore Miletello, who owned the menswear store, were insured under separate policies through Travelers. After paying their losses, Travelers sought subrogation against Pratt's insurer, alleging that Pratt was negligent in securing the premises and solely at fault.
Pratt's front door was glass with a key-opened lock. Following a few break-ins, Pratt also installed a metal gate over the front door. The back door could not be entered from outside and had a push button lock as well as a board placed over the interior doorway. A burglar alarm system was also installed on the premises.
Pratt said that she did not work the day of the fire, but was at the restaurant at closing. She did not personally lock the back door but stated that normal closing procedure for the employees included locking the back door if it had been opened during the day.
The court said, “Pratt correctly argues that her deposition testimony regarding the customary manner of locking the back door was sufficient to shift the burden to Travelers to come forth with evidence to show that the door was not adequately secured.” The court also said that Travelers had the burden of showing that Pratt had a duty to protect Miletello and the Costanzas from criminal acts committed by unknown persons and that the risk of arson was within that duty.
Because Pratt had an oral contract with her landlord, the state's Civil Code set for Pratt's liability: she was liable for damages that were her fault but not those damages caused by trespassers, passers-by, or intruders.
Pratt had been threatened by one of her former employees, who was responsible for break-ins at the restaurant. Travelers asserted that the history of criminal activity required Pratt to take additional security measures.
The court, however, said that Pratt made reasonable efforts to maintain a locked back door, the possibility of arson was not a foreseeable event, and that requiring further security measures “would impose an unreasonable and impossible duty to protect against all crimes that might occur, whether foreseeable or not.”
Thus, the court ruled that no disputed genuine issue of material fact existed and granted summary judgment to Pratt.