> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Landlords off the hook if latches are off the door
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/landlords-off-the-hook-if-latches-are-off-the-door/
- Published: 2004-01-30T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T03:42:13.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Real Estate & Housing, Santa Monica, #archive-import

A Santa Monica jury earlier this month found in favor of a landlord who was being sued because his tenants claimed he didn’t provide enough security, even though the building can’t be accessed without a key or pass code. The tenants were the victims of a violent break-in by four gunmen.

This week’s Q-Line question was: “How far should landlords in protecting their tenants? Do you agree with the jury’s decision?”

Here are the responses. ■ “This is an important question. How far should landlords go toward protecting their tenants? Well, I don’t agree with the jury’s decision. When you move into a security building, you pay a premium for that security. This is a black and white issue to me. They were paying a premium to live in a very expensive apartment that was supposed to include security. In this case, we are dealing with broken locks or something on a security elevator, a problem the landlord is supposed to take care of. I cannot believe that a jury found for the defendant, the responsibility plainly rests with the landlord. It is very clear that the landlord should have been on top of this for his tenants. This is the dumbest verdict I have ever heard of.” ■ “I don’t think that these tenants have any right to collect any money. I am sure that the landlord had acceptable security. Just because some people broke into someone else’s apartment does not make it the landlord’s fault. I am not sure what the laws are regarding security in other buildings but either way, you can’t expect the landlord to pay for damages he truly is not responsible for.” ■ “The best security in any apartment building is the security that tenants provide for themselves. Self-preservation lends itself to the old boy scouts adage, ‘be prepared.’” ■ “I don’t agree with the jury’s decision. Some years ago, I went back east to visit a friend who lived in the projects. They had security at the front door. You did not get in the front door unless the tenant came downstairs to receive you as a guest. You also had to show identification to prove that you lived in the building just to get in yourself as a tenant. Visitors had to show identification as well. If they can do that in the housing projects, public housing, and they can’t do it somewhere you’re paying $2,000 or $3,000 a month for rent, then something is really wrong. The decision is wrong, the landlord is wrong, and he should have paid those people for their suffering. Leave it at that.” ■ “Landlords are responsible for locks on their front door and tenants are responsible for keeping those doors locked whether they are entertaining indoors or out of their apartment. It was not clear whether or not the tenants had their own door locked. Here is another example. If a homeowner is robbed, who does he blame? Does the homeowner blame the police for not preventing this attack? I agree with the jury’s decision.” ■ “I have to disagree with the specifics on this case. Most of these landlords are getting excessive rents for these places, most of these rents are pretty high. When you rent a place like that you assume that the building is secure. It is the responsibility of the owner to inform tenants if they are not as safe as they think. They have keys and doors, and all kinds of security. However I don’t think a lot of these landlords are making sure they get all the keys back from previous tenants. When you own a building you have to take care of these things every time.” ■ “I think the first thing you have to say is, how much is better security? If someone really wants to get in, they will. One idea is to put up a barb wire fence, then you really have a problem. If we could do that then you would have severe repercussions against the landlord and no one would want to live there. I think common sense has just gone out the window.” ■ “Landlords make efforts to keep their properties safe from crime. Let us all remember it was the four gunmen that are guilty of this horrible crime. It is a pity that they were not caught, but I am sure the landlord would not be to blame if the criminals were caught.” ■ “It’s unclear how the four gunmen entered their apartment in the first place. Was there a broken door or a released pass code? Was the landlord really responsible or could it have been negligence on the part of the tenants not keeping the doors closed? Also, four gunmen? It seems to me that this was not random. Perhaps some of the neighbors should be questioned. Landlords are supposed to provide certain securities. How did these gunmen get in?” ■ “I’m glad the jury didn’t find the owners liable. All the owners should have to do is provide a domicile that is fit to be occupied, lockable doors and windows, heat, light and a roof that doesn’t leak. What, the owners should have to hold the hand of each tenant, follow them around like children? Pick up after them, make sure they look both ways before crossing the street? These were adults we think!\] They signed a lease/rental agreement after inspecting the unit. It’s their responsibility.”

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 30, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/013004.pdf?ref=smdp.com)