Florida condominium associations are legally responsible for many things, like upkeep and repair of the common areas. The failure to meet these legal duties may result in a negligence claim against the Condominium Association if someone gets hurt because of its neglect. For details on these kinds of claims, read our earlier discussion in: Common Lawsuits Against Florida Condominium Boards.
Condo owners may not know their Condo Association may also be held legally liable for personal injury damages resulting from criminal acts on the condominium property. Crimes on the property may result in significant demands being made against the Condo Association by the crime victim.
Photo Credit: Christopher Ziemnowicz, released to the public domain on Wikipedia Commons.
Negligent Security Claims against Condominium Associations
Under Florida law, when any individual is a victim of crime at a Florida residential condominium, he or she may have a civil claim for damages against the Condominium Association. The crime victim, whether or not they are tenants of a condo unit, a condo unit owner, a guest or visitor, may seek justice as defined by Florida’s premises liability laws.
Technically, the crime victim proceeds under an argument of “negligent security,” which is a particular type of Florida Condominium Negligence.
Essentially, the crime victim has a valid claim based upon negligent security against the Condominium Association if the victim can show the Association failed in its duty to provide reasonable and necessary security on the site, and that if the security had been provided, the victim would not have suffered injury.
Foreseeability
As a general rule, the crime must be shown to be foreseeable. This is the key element to be proven by the crime victim in a negligent security case. If the event could not have been foreseen by the Condominium Association, then there is no breach of duty and no neglect in providing security to the property.
Whether or not the crime was foreseeable must be determined by the facts of the particular event. Often, the Condo Association will refuse to admit that the crime could have been foreseen, forcing the case to go to a jury so the jurors can make that determination.
Reasonable Safety Protections
Another important factor here is whether or not the security provided by the Condominium Association was reasonable under the circumstances. Again, the question of whether or not the safety measures in place at the time of the crime were reasonable to protect against foreseeable criminal activity may be hotly contested. Jurors may be the decision-maker here, answering the question of whether the Association took reasonable security measures to protect owners, tenants, and guests against foreseeable crime.
For instance, was this a gated community? If not, should it have had gates installed? If this condominium is the only condominium property in a five mile radius without security gates, and police records show it is located in an area of high crime (vandalism, prowlers, burglaries, assaults, etc.), then the failure to have gates may be evidence of negligent security by the Condo Association.
What about Security Companies Hired by the Condo Association?
Condominium Associations may contract with security companies to provide protection to the property, its residents and guests. Any attempt by the Condo Association to avoid legal liability to a crime victim hurt on the Condo property by pointing the finger at the security company will fail, however.
This was attempted in the tragic case of Vazquez v. Lago Grande Homeowners Ass’n, 900 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004).
Murder and Suicide: Who is Responsible When a Security Company is in Place
When the crime in the Vazquez case occurred, the Lago Grande Complex was huge: between 2500 and 3000 residents lived there (some were owners; some rented). It had over 1000 residential units.
Lago Grande had three entrances, one on S.W. 87th Avenue; another on 122nd Avenue; and a third on 68th Street. Each entrance to the complex had a guardhouse with 24/7 guard service. Lago Grande was also surrounded by a 5 – 6 foot wall around the entire perimeter; parts of this wall were made up of six-foot fencing.
In fact, the real estate developer considered these protections a marketing incentive. It advertised Lago Grande as providing special security benefits. For purchasing condo unit owners, part of their condominium fee was tagged as paying for these protections.
The Lago Grande Board first hired a company called Florida Patrol to provide security guard services to the complex. Florida Patrol was instructed by the Condo Board to have its security guards follow certain “Post Orders.”
The Lago Grande Post Orders required the following:
- security guards at all three entrance guard stations to stop everyone entering the complex, whether they were a known resident or unknown visitor, and regardless of whether they arrived in a vehicle or on foot;
- logs kept of the station activities;
- security guards to check the Lago Grande Resident identification cards for all residents;
- security guards to check with residents before allowing any visitor to proceed onto the property; and
- security guards to call police if visitors were denied access by the resident and refused to leave.
In June 1993, Florida Patrol quit. Lago Grande replaced the company with the next-lowest bidder for the job, Centurion. The new security company was on the job the same day Florida Patrol left. Centurion’s contract included its agreement to obey the existing Post Orders.
Things were not the same after Florida Patrol left.
The Condo Association received many complaints from condo residents about Centurion. Post Orders were not being followed: visitors were not being logged in. Many people were entering the property without being authorized to do so by residents. People on foot were rarely logged into the visitor logs by Centurion.
Centurion asked Lago Grande to hire more security guards. Centurion also wanted to expand patrols with a second roving guard, and to add a fourth security gate. Lago Grande responded that it did not have the budget for these requests.
On the night of the tragedy, Centurion had 2 or 3 guards on duty at the north guardhouse at Lago Grande. This north entrance was very close to the unit purchased by resident Carmen Martin. Ms. Martin had moved to Lago Grande because the complex was “safe, secure and it was gated.” She enjoyed almost daily visits from her former neighbors, Victoria Valle and her two children, Jaclyn and Andrews.
Sometimes, Victoria’s husband Frank would visit, too. He came by Ms. Martin’s residence to pick up the kids: he and Victoria were separated. Frank and Carmen Martin had some disagreements during these occasions. After a while, Ms. Martin told Frank he was no longer welcome at Lago Grande.
When Frank still came to the complex, Carmen Martin went to the north guardhouse and told the Centurion security guards that Frank Valle was not welcome at her home, and if he came by that the guards were to call her immediately (which was exactly what they were supposed to do under the Post Orders).
Carmen Martin was clear that she did not authorize Frank Valle’s admittance onto the property. She believed him to be dangerous.
At 7:45-8:00 p.m., on the night in question, Frank Valle freely walked through the Lago Grande north entrance, between the two gates designated for visitors and residents. Witnesses reported he was acting strange.
Frank Valle entered Carmen Martin’s home (the door was unlocked) and after talking with Victoria Valle for around 20 minutes, shot her in the head, killing Victoria. He then shot Carmen Martin in the leg as she ran out the door, trying to get help. Finally, with his daughter watching, Frank Valle committed suicide by shooting himself with the same pistol he had just used to kill her mother.
Negligent Security Trial
Both the Lago Grande Condominium Association and Centurion Protective Services were sued for the wrongful death of Victoria Valle and the personal injuries sustained by Carmen Martin. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, which was upheld by the appellate court.
The appeals court found that Frank Valle was negligently permitted access to a condominium apartment after the security guards on duty were specifically warned not to do so because of his potential dangerousness.
Foreseeability “Irrelevant” in the Shooting Case
Lago Grande Condo Association and Centurion agreed to exercise reasonable care to prevent any criminal incident from occurring. The duty to protect had already been assumed.
Here, the issue of foreseeability becomes irrelevant and it did not matter that there had been no prior shootings or similar acts on the property. The Florida court held that contracting for security services was sufficient to impose obligation to protect customers as would reasonable guard under similar circumstances. See Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So.2d 1210, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 8, 9 (Fla.1986).
It explained:
While the security company was the entity plainly guilty of “actual” negligence in fulfilling its contractual obligations and those of due care, the condominium association is properly held liable for those actions both (a) because of its own negligence in retaining Centurion after ample notice of its prior security deficiencies, see 2A Fla. Jur.2d Agency and Employment § 263 (1998), and (b) as vicariously responsible for Centurion’s negligence because of its legal inability to delegate the non-delegable contractual duties it assumed in its agreements with its owner-members. See City of Coral Gables v. Prats, 502 So.2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and cases cited, review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1987); Mills v. Krauss, 114 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), cert. denied, 119 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1960).
Florida Condo Associations’ Negligence Security Liability to Crime Victims
As the Vazquez case explains, a Florida condominium association cannot pass along its responsibility to protect residents and guests from becoming crime victims by hiring a security company.
Even if the security company is an expert in crime prevention and the Condo Association has little experience or understanding in security matters, Florida law will not allow the association to delegate its contractual duties assumed in its agreements with association members.
Florida Real Estate Lawyer Can Help Crime Victims Hurt on Condo Property
If you have been a victim of a crime that happened on condominium property, then you may have legal claims to assert against the Florida Condo Association among other parties (like any security company hired by the association).
Getting help from an experienced Florida real estate lawyer is important to learn about your legal rights. Most Florida condominium lawyers, like Larry Tolchinsky, will offer a free initial consultation to answer your questions.
If you found this information helpful, please share this article and bookmark it for your future reference.
