COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67964 MARVIN JOHNSON, ET AL. : : Plaintiffs-Appellants : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION MONROE REALTY COMPANY : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION MAY 25, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING Civil appeal from Shaker Heights Municipal Court Case No. 94-CVI-03498 JUDGMENT Affirmed DATE OF JOURNALIZATION APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellants: For Defendant-Appellee: MARVIN JOHNSON, PRO SE WILLIAM A. PAYNE, ESQ. 20020 Van Aken Boulevard Payne, Payne & Cook Suite 16 1535 Leader Building Shaker Hts., Ohio 44122 526 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - JAMES M. PORTER, J., Plaintiffs-appellants Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Johnson, appearing pro se, appeal from the judgment of the Small Claims Division of the Shaker Heights Municipal Court in favor of the defendant- appellee Monroe Realty Company. Plaintiffs claimed that their landlord was liable for the vandalism of their car parked in the apartment garage because of lack of adequate security at the apartment. We find no error in the judgment below and affirm. On April 26, 1994 at or about 10:30 p.m., some unknown person or persons entered the underground parking garage of the apartment complex at 20020 Van Aken Boulevard in Shaker Heights and vandalized three cars and stole a fourth. The Shaker Heights Police investigated, but were unable to identify any suspects. The police report indicated that the manner of entry was unknown. Plaintiffs brought suit against the landlord to recover for the vandalism to their car and the theft of miscellaneous articles from within the car. After a trial to the referee, the referee prepared a report, which constitutes the App. R. 9(C) statement on appeal, containing findings and conclusions which stated as follows: The plaintiffs leased an apartment from the defendant. The monthly rent included a $15.00 fee for the rental of two spaces in the underground garage attached to the building where the plaintiff resided. On April 26, 1994, the plaintiffs' car was broken into by a unknown party or parties. The plaintiffs' car was damaged and certain property in the car was taken. - 3 - The plaintiffs claim that the break-in was due to the fact that the locks on all or some of the doors to the garage were not working properly. However, the plaintiffs admit that they do not know if the locks were working improperly on the date of the break-in. In fact, Mrs. Johnson testified that on the day of the break-in, the door to the garage from the lobby was working properly. There was no evidence that any of the doors were working improperly. There was not even any evidence that the person or persons who damaged the plaintiffs' vehicle came in through an outside door. The referee recommended judgment for the defendant at plaintiffs' costs. The trial court affirmed the report over the plaintiffs' written objections and this appeal ensued. The plaintiffs' assignments of error are stated as follows: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] IN NOT LETTING APPELLANT OFFER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND PICTURES TO THE COURT FOR PROOF OF THE HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE APPELLEE. II. THE COURT ALSO ERRORED [SIC] WITH THE DATES OF THE TRIALS AND JOURNAL PAPERS NOT BEING THE SAME. III. THE COURT ERRORED [SIC] BY DOING NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT MR. DAVID ADAMS, WITNESS FOR THE APPELLEE, LYING UNDER OATH, WHICH WAS PROVEN BY DOCUMENTATION AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. IV. THE MUNICIPAL COURT AND SMALL CLAIMS COURT SAW THE MANY, MANY VIOLATIONS AND PICTURES OF THE UNBELIEVABLE LIVING CONDITIONS AT THE PROPERTY, AND STILL TURNED THEIR HEADS AWAY FROM JUSTICE. - 4 - V. THE SHAKER HEIGHTS COURT AND THE SHAKER HEIGHTS BUILDING INSPECTORS HAVE LET THE APPELLEE GET AWAY FOR MANY MANY YEARS WITH THESE NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS. IF THE VIOLATIONS HAD BEEN CORRECTED AS THEY AROSE, THESE VIOLATIONS WOULD NOT EXIST NOW. The thrust of plaintiffs' case seemed to rest on the fact that the defendant had permitted many housing violations to exist for long periods of time without correction and that misconduct displayed some sort of generic responsibility for the vandalism that occurred. With appropriate deference to the plaintiffs' pro se arguments, we are nevertheless compelled to find that plaintiffs failed to prove that any security lapses or negligence on the part of the landlord or his building superintendent was the cause of, or provided an opportunity for, the criminal vandalism. As a general rule, landlords have no duty to protect their tenants from the criminal acts of third persons. Thomas v. Hart Realty, Inc. (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 83, 86; Sciascia v. Riverpark Apts. (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 164, 166. The duty of the landlord in such cases has been stated in Carmichael v. Colonial Square Apartments (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 131. That case dealt with a tenant who had been assaulted in his own apartment and brought suit against his landlord alleging that he was negligent in failing to provide adequate security in the common areas of the building. The court held that the landlord had complied with his duty to provide reasonable security and stated: - 5 - *** while the landlord has some duty to provide secure common areas in an apartment complex, he is not an insurer of the premises against criminal activity. *** Thus, the duty on the landlord is only to take some reasonable precautions to provide reasonable security. Id. at 132. See, also, Kelly v. Bear Creek Invest. Co. (Feb. 14, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58011, unreported. Pursuant to the referee's report adopted by the lower court as the App. R. 9(C) statement, there was no evidence that the doors to the garage were breached or that the locks were not in operation and secure at the time of the vandalism in question. The evidence strongly suggested that the vandalism was an "inside job," i.e., the vandals gained access to the garage area through pass keys or remote control devices customarily used by the tenants. The referee stated that "there was not even any evidence that the person or persons who damaged the plaintiffs' vehicle came in through an outside door." We find that the court's finding that the landlord did not breach any obligation to plaintiffs resulting in the vandalism in question was supported by the evidence. We find no error in the court's rulings excluding irrelevant evidence of other building violations. The incorrect date appearing on the judgment entry (August 23, 1994 instead of August 24, 1994) was harmless error. We also find the trial court acted within its discretion in overruling plaintiffs' motion for contempt against the building superintendent. International Merchandising Corp. v. Mearns (1989), 63 Ohio App.3d 32, 36 ("A trial court's - 6 - decision in a contempt proceeding will not be reversed in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion"). We find the plaintiffs failed to prove their case that the landlord bore any responsibility for the vandalism or their loss. Plaintiffs' assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Shaker Heights Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATTON, C.J., and JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR. JAMES M. PORTER JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which .