Tenant Not Responsible for Attack in Parking Lot

March 17, 2020

What Happened: Two unknown assailants attacked a GameStop customer in the parking lot of the property it leased. The customer sued GameStop for negligence. GameStop argued that it's not liable for what happened in the parking lot, because it doesn’t control that property; the landlord does.

Decision: The federal court in New Mexico agreed and tossed the case without a trial.   

What Happened: Two unknown assailants attacked a GameStop customer in the parking lot of the property it leased. The customer sued GameStop for negligence. GameStop argued that it's not liable for what happened in the parking lot, because it doesn’t control that property; the landlord does.

Decision: The federal court in New Mexico agreed and tossed the case without a trial.   

Reasoning: The duty to use reasonable care to maintain property in a safe condition falls to the party that controls the property. And the lease in this case stated that the parking lot and other common areas were “subject to Landlord’s sole management and control and shall be operated and maintained in such manner as Landlord, in its discretion, shall determine.” The court also nixed the argument that GameStop knew or should have known that such an attack might happen. The store wasn’t located in a high crime area, and there was no other indication that anybody had been or would be attacked there.

  • Gala v. GameStop, Inc.: 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40904

Topics

More like this