Stone v. Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc.
filed May 30, 2008
Second District, Div. Eight
Cite as 2008 SOS 3256

Retrial Ordered to Determine Negligence of Duty in Slip and Fall Accident

The Gumboz Creole Cajun (Gumboz for brevity) was a restaurant-tenant in the retail mall owned by Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc. (Center for brevity) in Los Angeles, California. The restaurant remised in paying its rent. Thus, on November 2001, Center filed a suit for unlawful detainer against Gumboz. Judgment was rendered in favor of Center and on December 27, 2001, Center recovered and took over the possession of the restaurant. While possession was transferred to Center, the restaurant did not stop operating until after about 20 days.

A week and a half later, Sheila Stone hosted a party at Gumboz. While Stone was dancing, she slipped on water on the temporary wooden floor. As a result, she broke her ankle and had undergone a total of five operations. She suffered from permanently diminished range of motion and lingering pain.

Stone sued Center and Gumboz for her injuries but only the case against Center prospered. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found Center partially liable for damages together with Gumboz. Stone was also held to be “contributory negligent.” Hence, this appeal.

Stone claimed that the duty of care and liability of Center should include inspecting the restaurant. According to Stone, had Center inspected the restaurant, it would have discovered the leak at once. Center asserted that he has neither duty to inspect the premises nor to protect the customers of his tenant because a landlord has no such duties.

The Court held that Center abandoned its duty and its right to inspect the restaurant which attaches upon entry of judgment in its favor in the unlawful detainer case. Despite knowing that Gumboz defaulted from paying rent and neglected the premises, Center still did not inspect the property.

As held by the jury, Center breached its duty to Stone. However, the county court failed to mention and to explain to the jury any duty to inspect. Thus, at the time of the trial, neither the jury nor the court had the guidance from case law regarding the duty to inspect. As a result, the jury might have concluded that the duty to inspect the premises attaches shortly after Gumboz’ default in the rent, instead of the entry of judgment in the unlawful detainer case.

The Court concludes that the county court should have instructed that the duty to inspect existed during the eviction proceedings.

Hence, the Court orders that the case be sent for retrial.