New Trial Required on Whether Super Acted Negligently

Tenant's home health care aide sued landlord for negligence after she was attacked in tenant's building. The aide had gone out on errands, returned, found the building's front door propped open, and was then attacked outside the apartment by a man who pushed her inside and raped her. She claimed that the building super often negligently left the front door propped open. After a jury trial, the court ruled against the aide and dismissed the case. She appealed, claiming that the trial judge had given improper jury instructions. The appeals court ruled for the aide and ordered a new trial. The judge had instructed the jury to consider what the super's duty was, whether he did what he was supposed to do, and what he could have done or should have done as a super. The judge had also stated that if the super kept the door open under certain circumstances, he would be responsible. This gave the jury the erroneous impression that landlord wouldn't be responsible. The jury instructions were ambiguous, confusing, and sometimes contradictory.

Smith v. Midwood Realty Assocs.: NYLJ, 12/24/01, p. 27, col. 4 (App. Div.2 Dept.; Altman, JP, Miller, Crane, Prudenti, JJ)