Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What amount of common-area premises liability is a single leaseholder in a multi-unit commercial property expected to shoulder? The question arises when customers, employees and others invited to or simply passing by a leased commercial property are injured, and want compensation. Who will be on the hook for the costs of bodily injury and property damage — the landlord, the tenant, the maintenance and security contractor hired by them, or some combination of these?
Most commercial leases will designate who — landlord or tenant — must maintain and secure common areas. When there are many tenants, the landlord logically has more overall control of the common areas, so the landlord generally bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring these spaces are safe and secure from hazards. But this is by no means a universal certainty. The lease may allocate some of the potential liability to the tenant, and the law of the jurisdiction in which the property lies also may weigh in with its own considerations.
A recent New Jersey case, Lane v. Whole Food, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1625 N.J. App. Div. (July 10, 2018), concerning a mishap at a Whole Foods market, is one of the latest to tackle the issue. It shows how courts can disagree about when a tenant has taken matters into its own hands in such a way that it crosses the line from innocent to responsible party.
Defendant Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., leased the grocery store premises in question from landlord Clark Commons, LLC. Whole Foods, like most business establishments desiring to keep nearby parking spaces open for the use of customers, instructed its employees to park their cars in a distant area of the parking lot. This area, while further from the store than most of the parking spaces, was next to a bank with security cameras and was still part of the parking facility normally used by the public when patronizing Whole Foods and the other business establishments in the 36-unit commercial property.
The lease between Whole Foods and Clark Commons designates the lessor as the party responsible for providing maintenance and security in the shopping center's parking lot. Specifically, the lease defines the "common area" of the property to include "the vehicle parking lot and other areas of the [shopping center] generally available for the use of all tenants and occupants in the [shopping center], including, without limitation, any common roadways, service areas, driveways, areas of ingress and egress, sidewalks and other pedestrian ways." It further states, under the heading "Landlord's Obligations," that the lessor "at its sole cost and expense … shall be responsible for installing, maintaining, repairing and keeping the Common Area in a neat, clean, safe, good, and orderly condition and repair according to the highest reasonable standard for first-class shopping centers in the metropolitan area where the [shopping center is] located" and that "to the extent that Landlord reasonably determines appropriate, Landlord shall provide security guards for the Common Area."
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?