Legal Writing
Case Brief
RKL Landholding, LLC. v James
Ct. File No. A12-1739, 2013 WL 2149979 (Minn. Ct. App., May 20, 2013)
Facts: RKL owns a vacant two-story commercial building and hired Kevin James to perform
repairs and improvements inside the building. At some point during James’s work on the
property but before the fire, an unidentified person broke into the building through a rear door,
which was damaged during the break-in. James used a make-shift method to secure the rear door
after the break-in. During the evening of April 4, 2008, an unidentified person intentionally set
fire to the building. Investigators determined that the unknown arsonist likely entered the
building through the previously damaged rear door.
Issue: Did James, as a contractor, owe a duty to the building owner to prevent the arson because
of a “special relationship”?
Holding: No. James was not in a position to, and should not have been expected to, protect
RKL’s vacant commercial building from arson.
Reasoning: Because RKL was the owner of the building, it was his primary responsibility for
protecting his property against arson. James cannot be expected to nail exterior doors closed after
each business day because RKL failed to replace the broken lock. RKL’s building was vacant,
which meant that James also had fewer reasons to take steps to prevent a break-in because there
was no personal property to preserve and there were no human occupants to protect. RKL cannot
satisfy the third requirement of the three-part Erickson-Funchess test, thus a “special
relationship” does not exist between them; James did not owe a duty to the RKL to prevent the
arson.