Johnson v. Atlanta Housing Authority

Citations: 532 S.E.2d 701; 243 Ga. App. 157; 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 1806; 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 423Docket: A99A1898

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; March 27, 2000; Georgia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Willie Cleve Johnson initiated a lawsuit against the Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) after being shot outside his apartment building. He claimed AHA failed to provide adequate safety measures to protect tenants from criminal acts. The trial court granted AHA summary judgment, which Johnson appealed. The incident occurred at approximately 10:30 p.m. while Johnson was sitting on a bench outside Roosevelt House, an AHA property. He was conversing with another resident, Anthony Pitts, when they noticed a suspicious man who later approached Johnson with a gun and shot him after Johnson denied knowing a person the assailant inquired about.

Under Georgia law, a landlord has a duty to protect tenants from foreseeable third-party criminal acts, as outlined in OCGA § 51-1-3. However, this duty does not equate to guaranteeing tenant safety. A tenant may be barred from recovery if they possess equal or superior knowledge of the risk and fail to take reasonable care for their own safety. The court noted that a landlord's duty to prevent crime is triggered when there is a history of similar criminal acts in the area, creating a duty to act. The law does not require that prior crimes be identical but rather that they provide sufficient notice of a potential danger. Courts assess the similarity of prior incidents by evaluating factors such as location, nature, extent, and relationship to the crime in question.

No evidence of a crime was found in the area where Johnson was shot. Johnson's expert reviewed 64 police reports indicating prior crimes near Roosevelt House, but there was no proof that AHA was aware of these incidents. Under Georgia law, property owners are not obligated to investigate police files for criminal activity on their premises (SunTrust Banks v. Killebrew). Johnson contends that AHA should be charged with knowledge of five reports involving assaults on its security guards, although none involved firearms or serious injuries. Notice to an agent constitutes notice to the principal under OCGA 10-6-58, so AHA is deemed aware of these incidents.

Prior to the shooting, AHA increased surveillance in response to car break-ins and was generally known to be in a high-crime area. These factors, combined with the incidents involving security guards, raise a jury question regarding AHA's notice of a dangerous condition. However, Johnson acknowledged his awareness of the area's danger, having lived there for three years and testified about the presence of criminal activity. He recognized it was unsafe to sit on the bench at night and had only done so once, on the night of the shooting.

Given Johnson's equal or greater knowledge of the danger, the landlord may not be liable for his injuries if he failed to exercise ordinary care for his safety. Although typically a jury question, this can be resolved summarily if the plaintiff's awareness of the risk is evident. Johnson's understanding of the risks associated with lingering at night near Techwood Drive was clear.

Johnson engaged in a ten-minute conversation in a known dangerous area, neglecting his surroundings despite acknowledging the risk. He failed to notice a man with an unusual appearance passing by twice before returning armed. The court determined Johnson did not exercise ordinary care, supporting the trial court's summary judgment in favor of AHA. Johnson argued that the "necessity rule," which protects tenants from summary judgment when they must traverse a known hazard to access their home, should apply. However, the court found this rule inapplicable as Johnson had alternatives, such as using a secure fenced courtyard provided by AHA for residents. Furthermore, while he needed to use the front door, lingering in a dangerous spot was not necessary. The judgment was affirmed by the judges.