Negligence; Landlord’s duty to protect tenants from criminal acts; Third-party criminal conduct; Notice; Specific imminent risk; Bailey v Schaaf; Electronic master key; Abandoned gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, & negligent infliction of emotional distress claims

The court held that defendants-landlords had no duty to anticipate or prevent a former employee-tenant’s theft from plaintiff-tenant Nguyen’s apartment because they lacked notice of a specific, imminent criminal threat. Nguyen sued defendants after nonparty-A allegedly used an unauthorized staff-level key to enter Nguyen’s apartment and steal personal property. The trial court granted defendants summary disposition, concluding Nguyen failed to establish that A’s criminal conduct was foreseeable or that defendants had a duty to prevent it. On appeal, the court held that defendants had no duty under Bailey because a landlord may presume tenants and invitees will obey the law until a “specific situation occurs on the premises” showing a risk of imminent harm to an identifiable person. “Notice is critical.” The court reasoned that A was terminated for performance reasons, not theft or dishonesty, and defendants deactivated the master key assigned to her. It also concluded the appliance thefts a month before the theft from Nguyen’s apartment did not create notice because nothing then known connected those thefts to A or the electronic key system, and Nguyen’s proposed audit and full reprogramming theory improperly reasoned backward from what defendants learned only after the entry into her apartment. Because defendants contacted police after the appliance thefts, they satisfied the limited duty to make “‘reasonable efforts to expedite police involvement.’” Affirmed.