From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Association
California Supreme Court
723 P.2d 573 (1986)
Frances T. (plaintiff) lived in a Village Green Condominium Project (the project) condominium and was a member of Village Green Owners Association (the Association), a nonprofit corporation composed of individual-unit residents. The Association enforced the project’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) and maintained its common areas. The project’s board knew criminal activity had occurred at the project throughout 1980. Frances’s unit was in virtual darkness, and in April 1980, her unit was burglarized. In May, Frances requested that the Association install more lighting. After repeated unanswered requests, Frances installed additional exterior lighting herself. The board instructed Frances to remove the additional lighting. Pending removal, Frances was instructed not to use the additional exterior lighting. However, Frances had installed the additional lighting on the same circuitry as her original lighting, so to avoid using the additional lighting, she could not use any of her exterior lights. Frances complied and did not use any exterior lighting on October 8. That night, while her unit was in total darkness, Frances was raped and robbed. Frances sued the Association and its board members for her injuries. Frances alleged that the Association and the board negligently failed to investigate lighting alternatives within a reasonable time, failed to present alternative lighting proposals, negligently failed to respond to requests for additional lighting, and wrongfully ordered her to remove her additional lighting. Frances argued that the Association should be held to the same standard of care as a landlord. The Association argued that it did not have a duty to improve the lighting because it was not a traditional landlord. The trial court sustained the Association’s general demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal. Frances appealed. [Ed’s note: Frances’s other claims, not discussed in this brief, were also dismissed.]
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Broussard, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Mosk, 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 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead 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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.