Case Law Summaries

Walsh v. Home School Realty

• Opinion Date: February 13, 2001
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

LEASES; PARKING LOTS; LIABILITY—A lease need not expressly state that a tenant has exclusive possession and control of its premises for a landlord to be absolved of liability for a fall on snow or ice if the tenant actually has such exclusive possession and control.

A teacher at a residential school, operated twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, slipped and fell on accumulated snow and ice as she exited her car in the school parking lot on her way to work. The property had been leased for about fifteen years. Under the most recent lease, the premises consisted of all of the land, buildings, and equipment situated on the property. The lease provided that the tenant could “not encumber or obstruct, or allow to be encumbered or obstructed, by snow, trash, inventory, etc. the sidewalks, entrances, halls and/or stairs of the Demised Premises… .” Further, the lease stated that the landlord was not required to make any repairs or improvements of any kind upon, in or to the demised premises. Instead, the tenant was required to keep, maintain, and take good care of the interior and exterior of the premises, including driveways, parking areas, and the like. Hence, the lease placed all responsibility on the tenant to maintain the interior and exterior of the premises. The lease, however, did not expressly provide that the school was to have “exclusive possession and control” over those premises, nor did it “specifically state that it is the lessee’s responsibility to maintain the parking lot free and clear of accumulation of snow and ice.” Nonetheless, there was no dispute that the school actually exercised total possession and complete control of the premises, including the responsibility for snow and ice removal from the parking lot. The lower court held in favor of the landlord because when a tenant assumes exclusive possession and control of a leased premises, its landlord does not have a duty to provide safe ingress and egress. It also construed the term “maintenance” to encompass snow removal. On appeal, the injured worker argued that summary judgment in favor of the landlord was improper because the lease contained an ambiguity in that it did not specifically state that the school was in exclusive possession and control of the premises. The Court rejected this argument as “insufficient” as a matter of law to overcome defendant’s summary judgment motion. According to Court, the past practices and conduct of the school “unequivocally” indicated that the tenant was in exclusive possession and control of the premises, and that it had assumed all responsibility for the premises, including snow removal activities.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.