Summary Judgment and Indemnity Claim Granted to Landlord in Premises Liability Case with $5 Million Demand
October 30, 2024
In a case involving ADA-compliance renovations, Murchison & Cumming, LLP attorney Robert M. Scherk successfully defended Aero Properties and its principal, William Gibbs, against a $5 million demand for alleged negligence and premises liability. The plaintiff, a manager at a Midas shop in San Diego, argued that restroom upgrades led to unsafe conditions, which he claimed caused him injury.
Aero Properties, however, argued that as landlords, they had no duty to the plaintiff since they had leased the property to his employer. According to Garcia vs. Holt, landlords are only liable for injuries on leased property if they are aware of a hazard and can address it. Aero Properties asserted that they did not know of any dangerous conditions nor had control over the dangerous conditions once the lease was in place.
The court examined these points and found that the landlord had relinquished responsibility through the lease, which placed safety obligations with the tenant. The evidence showed no indication that Aero Properties had knowledge of or control over any alleged hazards.
Additionally, while the plaintiff attempted to argue that Aero Properties might have implicitly approved dangerous modifications, the court found that the contractor’s work was outside the approved scope of the Building Plans. Ultimately, Aero Properties and William Gibbs were granted summary judgment, successfully defending against the plaintiff’s claims and resolving the $5 million demand in their favor.
This victory was complemented by a successful cross-complaint for indemnity against VB MDS Auto Services, the tenant. Despite VB MDS’s initial refusal to uphold its contractual obligation for defense and indemnity, the court upheld Aero’s position, enforcing their right to indemnity under California Civil Code Section 2778. Aero was awarded summary adjudication on the duty to defend and duty to indemnify, resulting in approximately $165,000 in fees and costs to be reimbursed, marking a significant double victory.
