Did Intervening /Superceding Acts Trump Breach Of Security Claim?
Michael Weiss, a psychiatrist, was conducting a patient session in his home office when Jacob Nolan, the cousin of his estranged former partner, barged unannounced into the office. Nolan was carrying a large black duffel bag and demanded that Weiss give him certain financial documents required for the child shared by Weiss and the former partner. (Weiss and the former partner had an acrimonious relationship, with charges of abuse and assault, followed by a bitter custody dispute.)
Weiss reproached Nolan, successfully expelled him from the apartment and locked the door. After the session, the patient departed but quickly returned to advise Weiss that the man who barged in was loitering in a common area of the building. Weiss then escorted his patient to the elevator and again engaged Nolan in dialogue. Nolan again communicated that his purported purpose was to retrieve some financial documents for the former partner and asked to use the bathroom in Weiss’ apartment (which was made available to patients). Weiss then permitted Nolan into his locked apartment to use the bathroom, while he printed the form Nolan had requested. Nolan then suddenly emerged from the bathroom and attacked Weiss, hitting him with a sledgehammer and stabbing him multiple times with a knife. Nolan and the former partner were both arrested and convicted for felony assaults upon Weiss.
Weiss sued Park Towers S. Co., LLC, the owner of the building, for failing to follow security protocols. Park Towers moved to dismiss the complaint. Supreme Court denied the motion. And Park Towers appealed.
The appellate court held that, under the circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted Park Towers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Weiss raised legitimate issues regarding lapses in the buildings’ security protocols, such as allowing Nolan to enter and wander around the building for over twenty minutes before exiting, only to re-enter the building minutes later without being challenged by the building staff about his continued presence. Weiss’ conduct in re-admitting Nolan into the apartment after earlier expelling him, however, constituted an intervening act and a superseding proximate cause, relieving the owner from any liability for failure to provide adequate building security.
Courts have granted summary judgment to building owners and operators in similar premises liability cases where tenants invited the possibility of danger into their apartment. Weiss’ re-admission of Nolan, with his duffel bag, into the apartment shortly after Nolan’s bizarre intrusion, though motivated by the benevolent intention of providing the documents purportedly required for his child, likewise constituted an intervening act and superseding proximate cause requiring judgment in favor of Park Tower.