AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
FRANCES T., Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
VILLAGE GREEN OWNERS ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Supreme Court of California.
*495 COUNSEL
Terry Steinhart for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jamoa A. Moberly, Schell & Delamer, Steven J. Revitz and Raiskin & Revitz for Defendants and Respondents.
OPINION
BROUSSARD, J.
The question presented is whether a condominium owners association and the individual members of its board of directors may be held liable for injuries to a unit owner caused by third-party criminal conduct. Plaintiff, Frances T., brought suit against the Village Green Owners Association (the Association)[1] and individual members of its board of directors for injuries sustained when she was attacked in her condominium unit, a part of the Village Green Condominium Project (Project). Her complaint stated three causes of action: negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court sustained defendants' general demurrers to plaintiff's three causes of action without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff appealed.
I.
On the night of October 8, 1980, an unidentified person entered plaintiff's condominium unit under cover of darkness and molested, raped and robbed *496 her. At the time of the incident, plaintiff's unit had no exterior lighting. (1) (See fn. 2.) The manner in which her unit came to be without exterior lighting on this particular evening forms the basis of her lawsuit against the defendants.[2]
The Association, of which plaintiff was a member, is a nonprofit corporation composed of owners of individual condominium units. The Association was formed and exists for the purposes set forth in the Project's declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). The board of directors (board) exercises the powers of the Association and conducts, manages and controls the affairs of the Project and the Association. Among other things the Association, through its board, is authorized to enforce the regulations set forth in the CC&Rs. The Association, through the board, is also responsible for the management of the Project and for the maintenance of the Project's common areas.
At the time of the incident, the Project consisted of 92 buildings, each containing several individual condominium units, situated in grassy golf course and parklike areas known as "courts." Plaintiff's unit faced the largest court. She alleges that "the lighting in [the] park-like area was exceedingly poor, and after sunset, aside from the miniscule park light of plaintiff's, the area was in virtual ... darkness. Of all the condominium units in [plaintiff's court] ... plaintiff's unit was in the darkest place."
Throughout 1980, the Project was subject to what plaintiff terms an "exceptional crimewave" that included car thefts, purse snatchings, dwelling burglaries and robberies. All of the Project's residents, including the board, were aware of and concerned about this "crimewave." From January through July 1980, articles about the crimewave and possible protective measures were published in the Association's newsletter and distributed to the residents of the Project, including the directors. The newsletters show *497 that residents, including the directors, were aware of some of the residents' complaints regarding lighting.[3]
In early 1980 the board began to investigate what could be done to improve the lighting in the Project. The investigation was conducted by the Project's architectural guidelines committee.
Plaintiff's unit was first burglarized in April 1980. Believing the incident would not have occurred if there had been adequate lighting at the end of her court, plaintiff caused the following item to be printed in the Association's newsletter: "With reference to other lighting, Fran [T.] of Ct 4, whose home was entered, feels certain (and asked that this be mentioned) that the break-in would not have occurred if there had been adequate lighting at the end of her Court. This has since been corrected. We hope other areas which need improvement will soon be taken care of...."[4]
In May 1980 plaintiff and other residents of her court had a meeting. As court representative plaintiff transmitted a formal request to the Project's manager with a copy to the board that more lighting be installed in their court as soon as possible.[5]
Plaintiff submitted another memorandum in August 1980 because the board had taken no action on the previous requests. The memorandum stated that none of the lighting requests from plaintiff's court had been responded to. Plaintiff also requested that a copy of the memorandum be placed in the board's correspondence file.
By late August, the board had still taken no action. Plaintiff then installed additional exterior lighting at her unit, believing that this would protect her *498 from crime. In a letter dated August 29, 1980, however, the site manager told plaintiff that she would have to remove the lighting because it violated the CC&Rs. Plaintiff refused to comply with this request. After appearing at a board meeting, where she requested permission to maintain her lighting until the board improved the general lighting that she believed to be a hazard, she received a communication from the board stating in part: "The Board has indicated their appreciation for your appearance on October 1, and for the information you presented to them. After deliberation, however, the Board resolved as follows: [¶] You are requested to remove the exterior lighting you added to your front door and in your patio and to restore the Association Property to its original condition on or before October 6. If this is not done on or before that date, the Association will have the work done and bill you for the costs incurred."
The site manager subsequently instructed plaintiff that pending their removal, she could not use the additional exterior lighting. The security lights had been installed using the same circuitry used for the original exterior lighting and were operated by the same switches. In order not to use her additional lighting, plaintiff was required to forego the use of all of her exterior lights. In spite of this, however, plaintiff complied with the board's order and cut off the electric power on the circuitry controlling the exterior lighting during the daylight hours of October 8, 1980. As a result, her unit was in total darkness on October 8, 1980, the night she was raped and robbed.
II.
Negligence
In her first cause of action plaintiff alleged that the Association and the board negligently failed to complete the investigation of lighting alternatives within a reasonable time, failed to present proposals regarding lighting alternatives to members of the Association, negligently failed to respond to the requests for additional lighting and wrongfully ordered her to remove the lighting that she had installed. She contends that these negligent acts and omissions were the proximate cause of her injuries.
The fundamental issue here is whether petitioners, the condominium Association and its individual directors, owed plaintiff the same duty of care as would a landlord in the traditional landlord-tenant relationship. We conclude that plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to state a cause of action for negligence against both the Association and the individual directors.
*499 A. The Association's Duty of Care.
(2a) The scope of a condominium association's duty to a unit owner in a situation such as this is a question of first impression. Plaintiff contends, and we agree, that under the circumstances of this case the Association should be held to the same standard of care as a landlord.
Defendants based their demurrer to the negligence cause of action on the theory that the Association owed no duty to plaintiff to improve the lighting outside her unit. The Association argues that it would be unfair to impose upon it a duty to provide "expensive security measures" when it is not a landlord in the traditional sense, but a nonprofit association of homeowners. The Association contends that under its own CC&Rs, it cannot permit residents to improve the security of the common areas without prior written permission, nor can it substantially increase its limited budget for common-area improvements without the approval of a majority of the members.
(3) (See fn. 6.), (2b) But regardless of these self-imposed constraints, the Association is, for all practical purposes, the Project's "landlord."[6] And traditional tort principles impose on landlords, no less than on homeowner associations that function as a landlord in maintaining the common areas of a large condominium complex, a duty to exercise due care for the residents' safety in those areas under their control. (See, e.g., Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App.3d 324, 328 [176 Cal. Rptr. 494]; O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp., supra, 75 Cal. App.3d 798, 802-803; Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp. (1970) 141 App.D.C. 370 [439 F.2d 477, 480-481, 43 A.L.R.3d 311]; Scott v. Watson (1976) 278 Md. 160 [359 A.2d 548, 552].)
Two previous California decisions support our conclusion that a condominium association may properly be held to a landlord's standard of care *500 as to the common areas under its control. In White v. Cox, supra, 17 Cal. App.3d 824, the court held that a condominium owner could sue the unincorporated association for negligently maintaining a sprinkler in a common area of the complex. In so holding, the court recognized that the plaintiff, a member of the unincorporated association, had no "effective control over the operation of the common areas ... for in fact he had no more control over operations than he would have had as a stockholder in a corporation which owned and operated the project." (Id., at p. 830.)[7] Since the condominium association was a management body over which the individual owner had no effective control, the court held that the association could be sued for negligence by an individual member.
In O'Connor v. Village Green Owners Assn., supra, 33 Cal.3d 790, this court held that the Association's restriction limiting residency in the project to persons over 18 years of age was a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51).[8] In so doing, we were mindful of the Association's role in the day-to-day functioning of the project: "Contrary to the association's attempt to characterize itself as but an organization that `mows lawns' for owners, the association in reality has a far broader and more businesslike purpose. The association, through a board of directors, is charged with employing a professional property management firm, with obtaining insurance for the benefit of all owners and with maintaining and repairing all common areas and facilities of the 629-unit project.... In brief, the association performs all the customary business functions which in the traditional landlord-tenant relationship rest on the landlord's shoulders." (O'Connor v. Village Green Owners Assn., supra, 33 Cal.3d 790, 796, italics added.)[9]
*501 Since there are no reported California cases dealing with the liability of a condominium association in a situation such as this, the parties have analogized this case to four landlord-tenant cases involving similar facts. The reasoning employed by this line of landlord-tenant cases is equally applicable here. In two of these cases the courts found the landlord liable, while in the other two they declined to do so.
O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp., supra, 75 Cal. App.3d 798 established that in some instances a landlord has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect a tenant from the criminal acts of third parties and may be held liable for failing to do so. In O'Hara plaintiff alleged that the defendant landlords were aware that a man had raped several tenants and additionally "were aware of the conditions indicating a likelihood that the rapist would repeat his attacks." (Id., at p. 802.) In addressing the question of the landlords' liability the court observed: "Traditionally, a landlord had no duty to protect his tenants from the criminal acts of others, but an innkeeper was under a duty to protect his guests. [Citations.] But in recent years, the landlord-tenant relationship, at least in the urban, residential context, has given rise to liability under circumstances where landlords have failed to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from criminal activity. [Citations.] ... [S]ince only the landlord is in the position to secure common areas, he has a duty to protect against types of crimes of which he has notice and which are likely to recur if the common areas are not secure. ... [Citations.]" (Id., at pp. 802-803, italics added. See also Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 799, 806-807 [205 Cal. Rptr. 842, 685 P.2d 1193].)
The court concluded that, as in the case before us, plaintiff had alleged the most important factor pointing to the landlord's liability: foreseeability. "[The landlords] allegedly knew of the past assaults and of conditions making future attacks likely. By not acting affirmatively to protect [the plaintiff], they increased the likelihood that she would also be a victim." (Id., at p. 804.)[10] Moreover, "evidence of prior similar incidents is not the sine *502 qua non of a finding of foreseeability." (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 127 [211 Cal. Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653].) "[F]oreseeability is determined in light of all the circumstances and not by a rigid application of a mechanical `prior similars' rule." (Id., at p. 126.)
Similarly, in Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co., supra, 123 Cal. App.3d 324, the court held that the plaintiff had stated a cause of action against the landlords for negligence in failing to protect her from assault, battery, rape and robbery by a person who had accosted her in the dimly lit lobby of an apartment building. The facts, as alleged, indicated that complaints by tenants and a prior assault on a tenant provided the landlords with notice of the injuries that might result from the level of crime in the area. The landlords also had notice that a defective lock on the lobby entrance door was allowing strangers access to the building. Relying primarily on O'Hara, the court concluded that the plaintiff had alleged facts sufficient to show that her injuries were the foreseeable result of the landlord's negligence in maintaining the entrance door. (See also Sherman v. Concourse Realty Corporation (1975) 47 App.Div.2d 134 [365 N.Y.S.2d 239]; Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc. (Fla.App. 1980) 382 So.2d 98; Spar v. Obwoya (D.C.App. 1977) 369 A.2d 173; Johnston v. Harris (1972) 387 Mich. 569 [198 N.W.2d 409]; Warner v. Arnold (1974) 133 Ga. App. 174 [210 S.E.2d 350].)
As in O'Hara and Kwaitkowski, it is beyond dispute here that the Association, rather than the unit owners, controlled the maintenance of the common areas. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that when plaintiff attempted to improve security by installing additional exterior lighting, the board ordered her to remove them because they were placed in an area over which the Association exercised exclusive authority.
Defendants further contend that even if the landlord-tenant standard of care is applicable, under this standard the Association owed no duty to the plaintiff. Defendants rely primarily upon 7735 Hollywood Blvd. Venture v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 901 [172 Cal. Rptr. 528] and Riley v. Marcus (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 103 [177 Cal. Rptr. 827] for this contention. Both cases are factually distinguishable from the case before us primarily because the alleged prior criminal acts were not of a nature that would create a duty to better secure the common areas. Both cases are legally questionable because in Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, *503 supra, 38 Cal.3d 112, we explicitly rejected the "rigidified foreseeability concept" applied by the court in Riley and adopted the court's conclusion in Kwaitkowski that "`[f]oreseeability does not require prior identical or even similar events.'" (38 Cal.3d at p. 127.)
The facts alleged here, if proven, demonstrate defendant's awareness of the need for additional lighting and of the fact that lighting could aid in deterring criminal conduct, especially break-ins. As in O'Hara and Kwaitkowski, the Association was on notice that crimes were being committed against the Project's residents. Correspondence from plaintiff and other residents of her court, along with the articles in the Project's newsletter, demonstrate affirmatively that defendant was aware of the link between the lack of lighting and crime.
Plaintiff's unit had, in fact, been recently burglarized and defendant knew this. It is not necessary, as defendant appears to imply, that the prior crimes be identical to the ones perpetrated against the plaintiff. (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, supra, 38 Cal.3d 112; Kwaitkowski, supra, 123 Cal. App.3d at p. 329.) Defendant need not have foreseen the precise injury to plaintiff so long as the possibility of this type of harm was foreseeable. (Isaacs, supra; Kwaitkowski, supra, at p. 330.)
Thus, plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to show the existence of a duty, that defendant may have breached that duty of care by failing to respond in a timely manner to the need for additional lighting and by ordering her to disconnect her additional lights, and that this negligence if established was the legal cause of her injuries.
B. Directors' Duty of Care.
(4a) Plaintiff's first cause of action also alleged that the individual directors on the Association's board breached a duty of care they owed to her by ordering her to remove the external lighting she had installed for her protection and by failing to repair the Project's hazardous lighting condition within a reasonable period of time.
(5) It is well settled that corporate directors cannot be held vicariously liable for the corporation's torts in which they do not participate. Their liability, if any, stems from their own tortious conduct, not from their status as directors or officers of the enterprise. (See United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 595 [83 Cal. Rptr. 418, 463 P.2d 770].) "[A]n officer or director will not be liable for torts in which he does not personally participate, of which he has no knowledge, or to which he has not consented.... While the corporation itself may be liable *504 for such acts, the individual officer or director will be immune unless he authorizes, directs, or in some meaningful sense actively participates in the wrongful conduct." (Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Eon Corporation (S.D.N.Y. 1975) 401 F. Supp. 729, 736-737 (applying Cal. law), affd. (2d Cir.1976) 546 F.2d 495.)
Directors are jointly liable with the corporation and may be joined as defendants if they personally directed or participated in the tortious conduct. (United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc., supra, 1 Cal.3d 586, 595; Dwyer v. Lanan & Snow Lumber Co. (1956) 141 Cal. App.2d 838, 841 [297 P.2d 490]; accord Thomsen v. Culver City Motor Co., Inc. (1935) 4 Cal. App.2d 639, 644-645 [41 P.2d 597]; see also Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, 785 [157 Cal. Rptr. 392, 598 P.2d 45]; Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Mann (1981) 124 Cal. App.3d 558, 574 [177 Cal. Rptr. 495]; O'Connell v. Union Drilling & Petroleum Co. (1932) 121 Cal. App. 302 [8 P.2d 867]; Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass'n, Inc. (4th Cir.1975) 517 F.2d 1141, 1144; Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Eon Corporation, supra, 401 F. Supp. 729, 736-737 (applying Cal. law); cf. Price v. Hibbs (1964) 225 Cal. App.2d 209, 222 [37 Cal. Rptr. 270].)
(6) Directors are liable to third persons injured by their own tortious conduct regardless of whether they acted on behalf of the corporation and regardless of whether the corporation is also liable. (See, e.g., Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass'n, Inc., supra, 517 F.2d 1141, 1144 ["a director who actually votes for the commission of a tort is personally liable, even though the wrongful act is performed in the name of the corporation"]; and see rule and authorities cited in 3A Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations (Perm. ed. 1986) §§ 1135-1138, pp. 267-298; 18B Am.Jur.2d (1985) Corporations, §§ 1877-1880, pp. 723-729; Knepper, Liability of Corporate Officers and Directors (3d ed. 1978) § 5.08 and (1985 supp.) § 5.08; 1 Ballantine & Sterling, Cal. Corporation Laws (4th ed. 1986) § 101, at pp. 6-3, 6-4; 19 C.J.S., Corporations, § 845, at pp. 271-273.)[11] This liability does not depend on the same grounds as "piercing the corporate veil," on account of inadequate capitalization for instance, but rather on the officer or director's personal participation or specific authorization of the tortious act. (See 18B Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 1877, at p. 726.)
*505 (4b) This rule has its roots in the law of agency. Directors are said to be agents of their corporate principal. (Corp. Code, § 317, subd. (a).) (7) And "[t]he true rule is, of course, that the agent is liable for his own acts, regardless of whether the principal is liable or amenable to judicial action." (James v. Marinship Corp. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 721, 742-743 [155 P.2d 329, 160 A.L.R. 900].) (4c) Moreover, directors are not subordinate agents of the corporation; rather, their role is as their title suggests: they are policy-makers who direct and ultimately control corporate conduct. Unlike ordinary employees or other subordinate agents under their control, a corporate officer is under no compulsion to take action unreasonably injurious to third parties. But like any other employee, directors individually owe a duty of care, independent of the corporate entity's own duty, to refrain from acting in a manner that creates an unreasonable risk of personal injury to third parties. The reason for this rule is that otherwise, a director could inflict injuries upon others and then escape liability behind the shield of his or her representative character, even though the corporation might be insolvent or irresponsible. (See O'Connell v. Union Drilling & Petroleum Co., supra, 121 Cal. App. 302; 18B Am.Jur.2d, supra, at p. 729, fn. 13.) Director status therefore neither immunizes a person from individual liability nor subjects him or her to vicarious liability.
Since this appeal follows a dismissal based on plaintiff's failure to state a cause of action, we must next determine the nature of the duty the individual defendants owed to plaintiff. In United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc., supra, we discussed the two traditional limitations on a corporate officer's or director's personal liability for negligence. First, we concluded that no special agency relationship imposed personal liability on the defendant corporation's president for failing to prevent economic harm to the plaintiff corporation, a client of his principal. This conclusion reflected the oft-stated disinclination to hold an agent personally liable for economic losses when, in the ordinary course of his duties to his own corporation, the agent incidentally harms the pecuniary interests of a third party. "Liability imposed upon agents for active participation in tortious acts of the principal have been mostly restricted to cases involving physical injury, not pecuniary harm, to third persons [citations]." (1 Cal.3d at p. 595.) Since the harm in that case was pecuniary in nature and resulted from good faith business transactions, we analyzed liability under principles of agency law and denied recovery against the officer as an individual. (Ibid.)
(8a) In Haidinger-Hayes, we also restated the traditional rule that directors are not personally liable to third persons for negligence amounting merely to a breach of duty the officer owes to the corporation alone. "[T]he act must also constitute a breach of duty owed to the third person.... More must be shown than breach of the officer's duty to his corporation to *506 impose personal liability to a third person upon him." (1 Cal.3d at p. 595, italics in original.) In other words, a distinction must be made between the director's fiduciary duty to the corporation (and its beneficiaries) and the director's ordinary duty to take care not to injure third parties.[12] (9) (See fn. 13.), (8b) The former duty is defined by statute,[13] the latter by common law tort principles.
(4d) Thus, if plaintiff's complaint had alleged only that the Association's CC&Rs and bylaws delegated to the directors a general duty to conduct the affairs of the organization, including the control and management of its property, then she would not have stated a cause of action. It is true that the residents were forced to rely on the directors to oversee management of the property; however, it would be insufficient to allege that because the directors had a duty as agents of the Association to manage its property and to conduct its affairs, that they also necessarily owed a personal duty of care to plaintiff regardless of their specific knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition that led to her injury. As this court suggested in Haidinger-Hayes, such a broad application of agency principles to corporate decision-makers would not adequately distinguish the directors' duty of care to third persons, which is quite limited, from their duty to supervise broad areas of corporate activity. Virtually any aspect of corporate conduct can *507 be alleged to have been explicitly or implicitly ratified by the directors. But their authority to oversee broad areas of corporate activity does not, without more, give rise to a duty of care with regard to third persons who might foreseeably be injured by the corporation's activities. "Directors or officers of a corporation do not incur personal liability for torts of the corporation merely by reason of their official position, unless they participate in the wrong or authorize or direct that it be done." (1 Cal.3d at p. 595.)
On the other hand, we must reject the defendant directors' assertion that a director's liability to third persons is controlled by the statutory duty of care he or she owes to the corporation, a standard defined in Corporations Code section 7231. (10a) This statutory standard of care, commonly referred to as the "business judgment rule," applies to parties (particularly shareholders and creditors) to whom the directors owe a fiduciary obligation.[14] (11) (See fn. 15.), (10b) It does not abrogate the common law duty which every person owes to others that is, a duty to refrain from conduct that imposes an unreasonable risk of injury on third parties.[15] The legal *508 fiction of the corporation as an independent entity and the special benefit of limited liability permitted thereby is intended to insulate stockholders from personal liability for corporate acts and to insulate officers from liability for corporate contracts; the corporate fiction, however, was never intended to insulate officers from liability for their own tortious conduct.[16]
(12) To maintain a tort claim against a director in his or her personal capacity, a plaintiff must first show that the director specifically authorized, directed or participated in the allegedly tortious conduct (United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc., supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 595); or that although they specifically knew or reasonably should have known that some hazardous condition or activity under their control could injure plaintiff, they negligently failed to take or order appropriate action to avoid the harm (Dwyer v. Lanan & Snow Lumber Co., supra, 141 Cal. App.2d 838; see also Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations, supra, *509 at p. 268; Annot., Personal Civil Liability of Officer or Director of Corporation for Negligence of Subordinate Corporate Employee Causing Personal Injury or Death of Third Person (1979) 90 A.L.R.3d 916). The plaintiff must also allege and prove that an ordinarily prudent person, knowing what the director knew at that time, would not have acted similarly under the circumstances.
(4e) Although the statutory business judgment rule defined in sections 7231 and 309 concerns only the director's fiduciary duty to the corporation, and not to outsiders, we recognize as the Legislature did that "[t]he reference to `ordinarily prudent person' emphasizes the long tradition of the common law, in contrast to standards that might call for some undefined degree of expertise, like `ordinarily prudent businessman.'" (Legislative Committee com., Deering's Ann. Corp. Code (1977) foll. § 309, p. 205.) We are mindful that directors sometimes must make difficult cost-benefit choices without the benefit of complete or personally verifiable information. (13) For this reason, even if their conduct leads directly to the tortious injury of a third party, directors are not personally liable in tort unless their action, including any claimed reliance on expert advice, was clearly unreasonable under the circumstances known to them at that time. This defense of reasonable reliance is necessary to avoid holding a director personally liable when he or she reasonably follows expert advice or reasonably delegates a decision to a subordinate or subcommittee in a better position to act.[17]
(4f) Under the facts as alleged by plaintiff, the directors named as defendants had specific knowledge of a hazardous condition threatening physical injury to the residents, yet they failed to take any action to avoid the harm; moreover, the action they did take may have exacerbated the risk by causing plaintiff's unit to be without any lighting on the night she was attacked. Plaintiff has thus pled facts to support two theories of negligence, both of which state a cause of action under the standard stated above.
First, plaintiff alleges that the directors took affirmative action that made the break-in more likely when they ordered her to immediately disconnect the lighting she had installed to protect herself from the foreseeable risk of *510 another criminal break-in.[18] Plaintiff alleges that she installed the additional exterior lighting only after the board ignored repeated requests from residents of her court to improve the lighting condition. Since the directors were aware of the crimewave and that plaintiff had installed additional lighting to protect herself, they assumed a duty to exercise their discretion in a manner that would not increase her risk of injury from crimes that could foreseeably recur if the common areas were not secure. Instead, according to the complaint, the board's decision actually increased the risk of harm and was the legal cause of plaintiff's injuries. Since the additional lights were connected to the building circuits and switches, forcing her to immediately turn off all the exterior lights meant extinguishing all the additional lights. The break-in, rape and robbery occurred on the same night plaintiff complied with the board's order, with the result that the area outside her unit was cloaked in near-total darkness.
Second, plaintiff alleges that the individual directors breached a duty of care owed to her by failing to take action to repair the hazardous lighting condition within a reasonable period of time. Some six months passed between the time the board began to investigate complaints about the lighting and the second burglary of plaintiff's unit. The facts, as alleged, indicated that the directors had actual knowledge of the level and types of crime in the area, of complaints by residents that the lights provided inadequate security, and of the recent burglary of plaintiff's unit. Therefore, plaintiff alleged, the directors knew the lack of adequate lighting