Dickinson Arms Roe LPV Campbell Discussion Response Assignment Help

Dickinson Arms Roe LPV Campbell Discussion Response Assignment Help

This Discussion will assess how well you understand the law regarding landlords’ liability for criminal acts. Begin by reading the facts of the case (Dickinson Arms-Reo, L.P. v. Campbell), then decide: Was the landlord liable for the death?

Read the arguments for both sides carefully before formulating your

decision. Be sure to reference (with proper APA citation) applicable laws to support your decision.

Also, response each posted #1 to 3 down below

Posted 1

In the case of Dickinson Arms-Roe, L.P. v. Campbell, there are questions of whether the defendant (landlord) was liable for the death of Joe Campbell on June 15, 1994. In order for me to access if the defendant was liable, I had to turn to the various elements of negligence and consider each of them separate as was done in the case. The various elements to prove negligence are duty, a breach of said duty, causation, and finally damages.

When looking at the duty that was owed, the apartments are charged with maintaining the grounds in a manner that is safe for those who live there and might be invited by tenants onto the premises. The defendants tried to argue that Joe was a licensee and not an invitee but the court denied the claim and asserted that Joe Campbell was an invitee and thus the apartments owed the same duty to him as they would a tenant that lives in the apartments.

This means that the apartments must be reasonably secured and free of harm for the tenants. The defendant failed to secure the premises due to the fact that 184 incidents are recorded by police to have occurred at the location in the form of thefts, assaults, burglaries, and such. The management failed to take notice of the 184 occurrences and install security features that would have potentially deterred harmful situations from coming about again.

Such securities as night guards, cameras, and informing tenants have been proven to aid in crime prevention and the management made no effort to use any of the methods thus failing to perform their duty to the tenants and resulting in a breach of duty. This also addresses the matter of if the event was foreseeable since given the number of occurrences it was only a matter of time before another incident happened at the apartments since no steps had been taken to deter future incidents.

There is also a question of cause and when addressing the cause, you usually look for actual cause and proximate cause (Langhart, Barnes, Prenkert, & Perry, 2019). The actual cause of the death of Joe Campbell was when he was murdered by Jeremy Gartrell.

The proximate cause was when the apartments failed to address the issues and secure the premises. If the apartments had heeded the various crimes that had occurred on the premises prior to Campbell’s murder and installed proper security measures as I mentioned before then the actual cause could have been prevented. This corresponds with the duty of the landlord to reasonably foresee harm and do all they can to prevent it. The damages that are awarded are thus merited since the landlord failed to perform the duty that the landlord was charged with.

Lastly regarding the question of if the victim knew the apartments were dangerous? and does it matter? In my opinion, it does not matter if the victim knew because the apartment’s landlord owes a duty to all who enter the premises. The duty of making sure the premises are safe for all who enter and that all foreseeable harm is taken into consideration. If I had an issue at my home that I knew about and could harm others, but there was a way to prevent it then I would do all I could reasonably do to make sure the threat was dealt with. That is my duty as a landowner and the landlord has the same duty.

Posted 2

Jeremy Gartrell attended a gang party at the Dickinson Arms Apartments in Dickinson, Texas. Gartrell later carjacked a tenant’s guest (Joe Campbell) in the apartment’s parking lot and murdered him. The relatives of the murdered man sued the apartment complex for negligence and failing to provide security (Dickinson Arms-Reo, L.P. v Campbell). During the case, it was noted that 184 offenses had been reported at the complex over a three-year period. An assault had just happened at the complex 5 days before the tenant’s guest was murdered. Even though no murders had occurred at the complex in 5 years, residents had complained that some of the residents and their visitors seemed dangerous and would take over the common areas at the complex. In light of this knowledge, courts found that the carjacking and murder of the guest was foreseeable.

In Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain, (1998) the Texas Supreme court laid out five factors that a court should consider in deciding whether or not a landlord should have foreseen criminal activity on its premises – proximity of previous crimes to the premises; how recently previous crimes occurred; how often previous crimes occurred; the similarity of the crime in the suit to previous crimes; and the publicity around the previous crimes.

Considering the 184 offenses reported and their nature (though they were not murders, some were violent), the landlord should have known something like this was bound to happen and taken steps to provide greater security to keep tenants and their guests safe. It is obvious that the landlord was aware of the criminal offenses that had taken place at the property and failed to use reasonable care (hiring security guards, posting signs, installing security gates, evicting criminal tenants, etc.) to keep the property safe for tenants and guests. That failure absolutely resulted in the death of Mr. Campbell. Thus, in my opinion, the courts got it right with their decision to hold the landlord liable. The apartment complex was negligent and failed to provide security which ultimately resulted in the death of Mr. Campbell.

Posted 3

In my opinion, the court decision was right about considering the defendants liable for the Campbell’s death. According to evidences collected during an investigation that was made after the crime occurred, several incidents were recorded around the Dickinson Arms Apartments area between 1991 and 1994, including lots of vandalism, stolen vehicles and assault calls. Therefore, considering that the risk of harm to a victim at apartment complex from criminal conduct was foreseeable, under the negligence law the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, & Perry, 2019).

Another important fact is that, even considering the bad reputation of the area where the property is located, the property manager had never called the police department to ask about crime at the apartment or about any preventive safety programs available for that area, neither had applied security surveys or informed the property owner about the lighting improvement that was identified at that time. Therefore, in my opinion the defendant has breached the duty of reasonable care to keep the premises safe for the tenants and their guests.

Considering that this situation was foreseeable, and the lack of security measures in the property caused the death of Joe Campbell, it is reasonable to conclude that a proximate cause existed in that case. And an existence of a damage was also evident, since one person died on that day.

Considering all the facts described above, my understanding is that the defendant was negligent and should be held liable for the death.

Score	Evaluation Criteria
Total score 100%	Meets all the criteria necessary for an A+ grade. Well formatted and instructions sufficiently followed. Well punctuated and grammar checked.
Above 90%	Ensures that all sections have been covered well, correct grammar, proofreads the work, answers all parts comprehensively, attentive to passive and active voice, follows professor’s classwork materials, easy to read, well punctuated, correctness, plagiarism-free
Above 75%	Meets most of the sections but has not checked for plagiarism. Partially meets the professor’s instructions, follows professor’s classwork materials, easy to read, well punctuated, correctness
Above 60%	Has not checked for plagiarism and has not proofread the project well. Out of context, can be cited for plagiarism and grammar mistakes and not correctly punctuated, fails to adhere to the professor’s classwork materials, easy to read, well punctuated, correctness
Above 45%	Instructions are not well articulated. Has plenty of grammar mistakes and does not meet the quality standards needed. Needs to be revised. Not well punctuated
Less than 40%	Poor quality work that requires work that requires to be revised entirely. Does not meet appropriate quality standards and cannot be submitted as it is to the professor for marking. Definition of a failed grade
Alternative url	www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow/www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow/

Dickinson Arms Roe LPV Campbell Discussion Response Assignment Help

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

The post Dickinson Arms Roe LPV Campbell Discussion Response Assignment Help appeared first on Perfect Grade.