Derrick George was the unfortunate victim of crime in his very own apartment. On June 11, 2011, George’s apartment was burglarized while he was not home. The manager of the apartment complex, Hercules Real Estate Services, Inc. repaired the front door and installed a metal burglar guard. Later that year on July 27, 2011, George was shot at multiple times in an attempted forced entry by unknown assailants. The police never apprehended or identified the intruders. George did not return to his apartment or continue paying rent after the shooting incident.

Sometime after the shooting, George filed a liability action against Hercules for negligence, nuisance, and punitive damages. Hercules filed a counterclaim seeking the unpaid rent. The trial court found in favor of Hercules, granting summary judgement that George breached the lease agreement to pay rent. George appealed. 

Included in George’s appeal were claims for breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and for constructive eviction. George first argued that his right to quiet enjoyment was violated when the burglary and the shooting incident occurred. Second, George argued that because Hercules failed to provide adequate security or properly secure his lock, he no longer felt safe living in the apartment and therefore, he was constructively evicted. 

If George successfully argues his claims of breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment or of constructive eviction, then his obligation to pay rent is relieved. If his obligation to pay rent is relieved, then George will not have breached the lease agreement.

Based on what you know of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and of constructive eviction, do you think either of George’s arguments are convincing? Explain your reasoning. If every tenant in the apartment complex refuse to return to their homes citing fear from criminal activity, do you think this could constitute constructive eviction? Why or why not?