Scott V. Watson 278 Md. 160

Byrne relies on Scott v. Watson, 278 Md. 160 (1976), for the proposition that “a breach of a duty by a defendant will result in his liability in the third party criminal activity context when the breach enhances the likelihood of the particular criminal activity.” (Opposition at p. 9). First, Scott did not even hold that the landlord owed the plaintiff a duty—as that case was a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Id. at 161-62. Second, Scott applied exclusively to the duties a landlord owes to its tenants. Id. at 169. For the reasons stated in Part I, supra, the Co-Owners are not Byrne’s landlord. Finally, Scott expressly limited the scope of potential circumstances where a landlord may owe a tenant a duty to protect the tenant from criminal conduct to instances “where landlord knows, or should know, of criminal activity against persons or property in the common areas.” Id. (emphasis added). Byrne alleges no facts that—if true—would have put the Co-Owners on notice

For the reasons stated in Part I, supra, this matter is distinguishable because the Co-Owners are not Byrne’s landlord.
Finally, of the two cases that involve the potentially tortious conduct of one other than a landlord, both of those cases present instances “where a [defendant] knows, or should know, of criminal activity against persons or property.” Scott, 278 Md. at 169; see R.B.Z. v. Warwick Dev. Co., 681 So. 2d 566, 567 (Ala. Civ. App.) (plaintiff-tenant was raped by a property manager’s ex-husband that had previously been convicted of rape); Ctr. Mgmt. Corp. v. Bowman, 526 N.E.2d 228, (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (management company distributed master keys having notice of prior burglary committed by using its master