The Law

Tenant Parking Lot Maintenance, Absurd by Ron Davis Is a shopping center tenant at fault for a customer’s injury that occurs just outside the tenant’s leased premises? That question arose recently in New Jersey when a customer of the Shoppes at Foxmoor, located in Robbinsville, tripped and fell on her face as she walked to her car. She blamed both the tenant and the shopping center’s owners for her resulting injuries. Her accident occurred just after she left the tenant’s store with her husband and as she approached their car. She said she moved around the car to get inside when her “foot caught a hump.” The site of her fall was just a couple of feet from the crosswalk in a roadway that separates the center’s tenants from the parking area. The tenant claimed that once its customers leave the store’s premises, it is no longer responsible for their safety. At that point, the tenant added, customers enter the common area of the shopping center, whose owners then assume liability for tenant safety. In fact, the lease of the tenant states that the center’s owners are responsible for maintaining the shopping center premises “in good operating condition and repair.” That responsibility includes resurfacing the sidewalks, parking lot, and driveway areas when needed. But the Shoppes at Foxmoor has a very efficient way of spotting potential problems at the center. Inspections are conducted regularly. In fact, one employee there says he inspects the parking lot each day to search for potholes. The injured woman claimed, however, that the tenant was equally responsible for her injuries. That’s because, she said, a store owner has a duty to provide for the safety of their customers as they enter and leave the store premises. And she pointed out that the store’s employees make periodic inspections of the parking area. Such a duty, she added, makes the tenant responsible for the safety of their customers. A New Jersey appellate court noted that the center’s owners retained the obligation to make inspections of the premises and perform all necessary repairs and maintenance. “The record,” the court added, “does not establish any ‘rights’ that [the tenant] had over the area where the injury occurred that conflicted with the allocation of responsibility in the lease.” The court further observed that the imposition of an inspection and repair duty on the tenants of a shopping center would result in a duplicative effort and interference with the landlord’s maintenance program. Explained the judge, “It is not hard to imagine the confusion, and perhaps danger, that could ensue if snow plows and salt trucks by the landlord and [the various tenants] all attempted to maintain the parking lot at the same time. The thought of the same occurring in a shopping center with twenty or more tenants highlights the absurdity of such a shared duty.” (Kandrac v.Marrazzo’s Market at Robbinsville [2012 WL 5381626, N.J. Super.A.D.]) Decision: November 2012 Published: December 2012