Raven H. v. Gamette
December 7, 2007, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2007 SOS 7201

Court Remands Case of Assaulted Tenant

In Raven H. v Gamette, the lawsuit stemmed from an incident that happened one night when Raven H, the plaintiff, was sexually assaulted by a man who broke into her apartment. Raven had already complained to her landlord for failing to take measures to secure the apartment. Raven also alleged that the landlord did not warn her that violent crimes had been committed within the area. As a consequence, Raven sued the landlord.

The landlord responded with a motion for summary judgment directed at the issue of causation. The trial court granted the motion of Gamette, the landlord and defendant in the case, commenting that the plaintiff had “failed to submit admissible evidence establishing a causal link between her injuries” and the landlord’s alleged ‘breach of duty’ or lack of concern for the safety of her tenant.

When the case was brought up to the Court of Appeals, Second District, Division 3, it reversed the ruling and remanded the issue to the trial court. The court explained that it does not need to ‘establish causation’ as a primary issue, rather the plaintiff only needed to raise ‘a trial issue of material fact’ to defeat the defendant’s motion.

In conclusion, the court said there was ‘a triable issue of fact’ to determine if the condition of the apartment complex was a substantial factor in causing the injuries. Hence, the court reversed the order granting the summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court.

Further, the court found negligence in “more than one person, including the plaintiff”, which can be a factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant’s motion was based on two similar cases where the lack of evidence presented by plaintiff failed to establish that the landlord’s conduct is a factor in causing harm to plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff herself did not know who her attacker was and how he gained access to the premises.

Eventually, when the intruder was caught, it was known he was not a tenant who was entitled to enter the premises. Further investigation also revealed that the car and pedestrian gates were frequently left often or did not work .

The court held that these accumulated facts are “sufficient to support an inference that the landlord’s action” was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries.

In addition, the plaintiff said the landlord failed to provide her window locks or security bars like many of the windows in the complex.

As such, the court held that there is “a triable issue of material fact” concerning the landlord’s action as a substantial factor in causing injuries to the plaintiff.