Outbuildings Not Included in Lease’s Maintenance Requirement

Facts: An employee of a truck rental company tenant sued the property’s owner for negligence, after the employee injured his back when he stepped into a hole in the floor of a tire “shed” that was on the property the owner leased to the tenant. The owner asserted that it owed no “duty of care” to the tenant’s employee, because the lease’s requirement that the owner maintain the property didn’t apply to outbuildings, like the shed, that were on the property.

A district court granted the owner’s request for a judgment in its favor without a trial. The employee appealed.

Decision: A Massachusetts appeals court upheld the district court’s decision.

Reasoning:The employee sued the owner based on the theory that it owed him a duty of care to maintain and repair the tire shed under the lease between the owner and the employer. And both parties agreed that the tire shed, although not specifically mentioned in the lease, was conveyed by the owner to the employer by the lease and so was part of the “leased area.”

But a paragraph of the lease provided for the maintenance and repair of the garage and for no other structure on the premises. The court found that the paragraph by its terms applied only to the structural elements of and the amenities “in the garage.” The tire shed was located outside of and separate from the garage building. Therefore, the lease did not obligate the owner to maintain or repair the tire shed. Because the owner owed no duty of care to the employee, the appeals court determined that a trial wasn’t necessary.

• Fernandes v. AGAR Supply Co., July 2012