Doe v. Dominion Bank of Washington
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
963 F.2d 1552 (1992)
Jane Doe (plaintiff) worked in an office located at 1430 K Street, a commercial building with offices leased to several companies. Dominion Bank (Bank) (defendant) held the master lease to the building. Beginning in February 1989, the Bank began to let its leases on office space expire in light of a contract to sell the property. By May 1989, five floors of the building were vacant. On the morning of May 24, 1989, Doe was alone in her office. While taking the elevator to the lobby, the elevator stopped at one of the vacant floors. A man entered and dragged Doe into a vacant office, where he raped and robbed her. Doe subsequently brought a tort action against the Bank, alleging that the Bank had a duty to take reasonable measures to keep the tenants safe from criminal conduct and that the Bank had failed to do so. At trial, Doe presented evidence regarding the building conditions, safety measures taken by the Bank, and criminal activity that had occurred in the building in recent years. This included evidence of the theft of personal and business property, drug use, and sexual activity in the building, as well as tenant complaints about intruders and inadequate security. One tenant had recently alerted building management to the repeated presence of a threatening intruder and requested heightened security on multiple occasions. Another tenant reported that its office had been burglarized. That same tenant reported an intruder in the building a week before Doe’s rape. Doe also presented a qualified expert witness, Anthony Potter. Potter noted that the security at 1430 K Street did not comply with acceptable standards of commercial building security, particularly because the building’s vacant spaces, floors, and offices were not secured or blocked off. The Bank moved for a directed verdict. The district court granted the motion, finding that, although Doe adequately established the applicable standard of care, she failed to establish the rape was reasonably foreseeable.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
Concurrence (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.