LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - A California court has ruled that a man who was locked out of his apartment can sue the building's owner after he tried to scale down to his balcony from the roof but instead fell.
The Second Appellate District on May 12 overturned a Los Angeles judge's decision to dismiss the case, finding Arkadi Razoumovitch can proceed with his claim that 726 Hudson Ave. failed to restrict access to the rooftop.
"California law imposes a duty on everyone, including landlords, to exercise reasonable care, and the 726 Hudson defendants have not shown public policy considerations justify departing from that generalduty; and causation, as it is in most cases, is a factual issue," the decision
Razoumovitch accidentally locked himself out of his top-floor apartment and decided to drop down onto his balcony from the building's rooftop. He had attempted to reach the off-site building manager to unlock his door.
He tried to land on his balcony's "thick masonry wall, but he lost his balance when he did. He fell to the ground and suffered injuries, then later filed his lawsut.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Audra Mori granted 726 Hudson's motion for summary judgment after it argued there was no emergency that required Razoumovitch to attempt to get into his apartment in such a dangerous manner.
"Well, it was just needing to be home and, you know, have a place to sleep," he testified.
726 Hudson also argued the building complied with all relevant codes and that there had been no previous complaints about injuries on its rooftop. The plaintiff claimed the 726 Hudson failed to restrict access to the roof for "arbitrary and/or unauthorized access by tenants and/or visitors."
He said there needed to be warning signage or an alarm, as well as an onsite property manager or 24-hour emergency phone number. The appeals court found that while a landowner does not have a duty to remedy obviously dangerous conditions, that's not true in all cases.
"(T)he 726 Hudson defendants argue it was not foreseeable 'that a tenant being locked out of his or her apartment would result in the tenant intentionally climbing down the side of a building to access his apartment,'" the Second District said.
"A jury may well agree (or assign Razoumovitch considerable comparative fault), but the issue cannot be decided as a matter of law on the record. Given, for example, the evidence regarding the proximity of Razoumovitch's balcony to the edge of the roof and the evidence tending to show at least some degree of practical necessity for entering his apartment through the balcony, causation was a factual issue."