Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
Maintaining Premises
If a tenant fails to notify the premises owners of a repair that is the owner's obligation, as required under the terms of a lease, the owner may not be held liable for any injury that results from the neglected repair; the management company may also not be held liable unless it knew or had reason to know of the need to repair. Briggs, et al. v. First Realty Mgmt. Co., et al., No. 86354, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, Feb. 2, 2006.
Briggs, an employee of the tenant, Pioneer, was injured when a water tower fire suppression tank ruptured as he refilled it, following his weekly inspection of the fire suppression system. Briggs filed an action for negligence against the owner of the premises and the manager of the premises (the defendants). The defendants denied liability and asserted cross-claims and third-party claims against each other. The owner of the premises moved for summary judgment, arguing that Pioneer, as the tenant, had possession and control of the premises at the time of the water tank rupture. The owner argued that although it was its duty to maintain, repair, or replace the tank, the duty was contingent upon notice from Pioneer, and no such notice was ever provided. The management company also moved for summary judgment, arguing that it only acted as the agent of the owner and had no independent obligations with regard to the premises.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?