The Law

Tenant’sGate by Ron Davis An accident victim who was seriously injured at a California shopping center has found a target to blame. The shopping center is Reseda Plaza in Los Angeles, and the accident occurred at a rear area of the facility. An employee of one of the tenants was standing outside the gate leading to her employer’s loading dock when the gate fell on her as she tried to close it. She suffered injuries from the accident and eventually filed for worker’s compensation. That loading dock was used exclusively by the tenant. It was housed in an enclosure that the tenant built. And neither the center’s owner nor a company that had ownership rights over the center’s common areas played a part in constructing the enclosure or in making repairs there. The injured employee pointed out that an inspection of the gate that fell on her disclosed that it was unsafe at the time of the accident. That’s because, she said, the gate lacked stopper devices to prevent it from coming off the track. As such, she added, the condition of the gate violated the Los Angeles building code. Adding to the employee’s account was the fact that the enclosure was totally within the area for which the tenant paid rent, so only the store manager had a key to the enclosure. In fact, no other tenant stored merchandise or equipment there. And no one except the tenant’s employees cleaned that area. The shopping center’s owners therefore believed that only the tenant was responsible for any worker’s compensation owed the injured employee. However, an inspection conducted several years earlier (in 2004) by the Los Angeles Building and Safety Department determined that the tenant’s rear-dock enclosure did not comply with safety standards. The Department therefore ordered the center’s owners to demolish the structure and restore it to its original state, then maintain the premises in a clean and sanitary condition. But records show that the center’s owners complied with the Department’s orders, and the case was closed. A California court, ruling in favor of the shopping center’s owners, explained, “The evidence established that [the tenant] had exclusive possession and control of the loading dock structure, including the gate…. Other than inspections at the times the lease was renewed and later extended, no evidence was presented that [the center’s owners] exercised any control over the enclosure…. [The center’s owners] did have the right to inspect the leased property for any legitimate purpose. But that right does not impose a duty to do so, absent something that would place a reasonable landlord on notice that an inspection should be made. Aside from the 2004 notice of violation, which was resolved the same year, there is nothing suggesting that [the center’s owners] were on notice of the dangerous condition of the enclosure, including the gate.” (Essy Mottahedi v. Moose Holding Company, Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, 8.1115) Decision: January 2012 Published: January 2012