Owner's Duty of Care Stemmed from 'Unusual' Lease Provisions

Facts: The employee of a tenant who rented retail space was injured when a light fixture fell on her upper back and neck while she was working. The employee sued the owner. The owner asked a trial court for a judgment in its favor without a trial. The trial court granted the owner’s request. The tenant appealed.  

Decision: An Iowa appeals court reversed the ruling and sent the case back to the lower court for a trial.

Reasoning: The issue in this case was whether the owner of the space had a “duty of care” to its tenant’s employees—that is, a duty to protect the employees from harm that could foreseeably happen on its property. 

The lower court concluded that the owner wasn’t responsible for the safety of the tenant’s employees. But the appeals court determined that the imposition of a duty of care was justified because the owner “retained control over the employee’s workspace because of the ‘unusual’ lease arrangement.” Under the lease, the owner did not demise a specific portion of the property to the tenant; it reserved the right to impose a definite demarcation if additional tenants moved in. Further, although the tenant agreed in the lease to take the property “as is,” the owner agreed in the lease to keep the structural parts of the building (including the ceiling and the lighting) in good repair, and, by taking on that contractual responsibility, the owner owed a duty of reasonable care to the employee.

• Benson v. 13 Associates, L.L.C., February 2015