Pierce County Judge Agrees Scope of Duty Owed by a Non- Possessory Landowner is Limited: MSJ Win in Premises Liability Case

Claims Alleged: Negligence, Premises Liability. 

Damages Alleged: Economic and Non-Economic Damages. Plaintiff sustained a fractured ankle with medical bills totaling approximately $85,000, and also alleged ongoing emotional and psychological mental health claims 

The Overview: In a classic landowner v. possessor of land case, Senior Associate John Barton and Partner Joy Lee brought and successfully secured a Motion for Summary Judgment in Pierce County, dismissing their client, the Landowner.

The Background: In this case, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Tenant to do a move-out cleaning of the Landowner’s rental property. While Plaintiff was on the rental property, she stepped on an alleged broken sewer lid located in the front yard. Plaintiff allegedly fell through the sewer lid and sustained an ankle fracture requiring surgery. Plaintiff then sued the Tenant, Landowner, and the Property Management Company.Plaintiff alleged all Defendants were liable under a premises liability theory of negligence.

The crux of the issue in this case was whether the “owner” was the actual “possessor” of the land at the time of the alleged incident—as that would determine the duty owed to Plaintiff.  Under Washington law, it is the “possessor” of land that has the duty to warn or protect persons of potential hazards that are upon it, not the mere owner.

Plaintiff’s Theme: Plaintiff sustained a serious injury requiring surgical intervention and argued that Defendants should be collectively responsible—conflating the duties owed by each Defendant.

Our Strategy: In depositions and written discovery, Joy established that Defendant Tenant had sole possession of the property, knew of the broken lid or could have discovered it, did not discover it, and did not report it to either the Property Management Company or to their clients, the Landowner.

Following depositions, Joy’s team brought a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Landowner did not owe a duty to a Tenant’s invitee for alleged defects on the property because there was no dispute that the Tenant had sole possession and control of the property (per the Rental Agreement) and also never notified either the Property Management Company or Landowner of any issues that required action on their part.

In response, while Plaintiff’s counsel continued to conflate the duties owed by Defendants, Tenant’s counsel also made the creative argument that even though the Landowner didn’t possess the property, the lid itself was a “common area” because it was likely a sewer system underneath, and thus still subject to control and maintenance by the Landowner. This argument was properly dismissed by the Court.

The Outcome: John was well prepared to discuss the cases and statutes cited by Plaintiff and Defendant Tenant and make the appropriate distinctions to secure a win. And despite Plaintiff’s attempts to argue disputed facts regarding causation and foreseeability, the Court determined correctly that it was immaterial to the issue of duty and dismissed the claims against both the Landowner and the Property Management Company.

Property possessors should assess their properties for potential hazards, such as obscured hazards, holes, damaged steps, etc., and should take steps to remedy known defects where persons could be injured. Landlords, non-possessory owners, and management companies should be mindful of their contracts and leases with tenants and what those leases require of the owner, the manager, and the tenant.

Case law is very clear that landlords with duties to repair can be liable to their tenants. Further, specific contract terms that grant “non-exclusive” possession can open a landowner to liability.