Background
Blaine McLaughlin, an employee at a Midas auto shop, was injured on July 22, 2019, when he stepped into a hole in the floor of the employee restroom. The hole had been cut by contractor Rogaciano Sanchez in connection with a bathroom renovation project. McLaughlin sued Sanchez, the landlord Aero Properties, Aero's general partner William Gibbs, and property managers, asserting negligence and premises liability claims.
Aero Properties owned the Midas property and leased it to Midas under a commercial lease executed in January 2019. An addendum to the lease obligated Aero to upgrade the restrooms to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Aero contracted with Sanchez to perform that work according to specific architectural plans. The lease required that any changes to those plans be approved by Gibbs.
Sanchez testified that Midas's owner, Victor Bagdasar, asked him to create a second floor drain in the employee restroom. Sanchez stated that when he mentioned the request to Gibbs, Gibbs told him, 'No, don't do it.' Despite this refusal, Sanchez proceeded to cut the hole and install the drain as a favor to Bagdasar, without charging for his time. McLaughlin entered the restroom to wash his hands and fell into the hole, sustaining serious injuries.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Aero Properties and Gibbs. The court applied the rule that an out-of-possession landlord owes a duty of care to third parties injured by a dangerous condition arising during the tenancy only if the landlord has actual knowledge of the condition and retained a right and ability to reenter the property to eliminate the hazard. The court found no triable issue of material fact that Respondents approved the second drain or had actual knowledge that Sanchez created it despite being told not to.
The court rejected McLaughlin's argument that Respondents retained sufficient control over the premises to be liable for Sanchez's conduct. Although Respondents had a nondelegable duty to conduct the repairs they undertook in a safe manner, that duty did not extend to work performed by Sanchez outside the scope of the contractual agreement and against Gibbs's explicit instructions. The court emphasized that the second drain was not part of the approved architectural plans and that Gibbs had expressly refused to approve it.
The court also concluded that the exception for landlord liability when a landlord volunteers to repair a defective condition did not apply. Respondents did not volunteer to repair the second drain; rather, Sanchez undertook that work independently as a favor to Bagdasar. The court held that Respondents had no duty to ensure that their lessee did not create its own dangerous condition by commissioning additional repairs without their knowledge and outside the scope of the agreement.
Key Takeaways
- An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for dangerous conditions created by a contractor acting outside the scope of approved work and against the landlord's explicit instructions.
- A landlord's nondelegable duty to conduct repairs safely does not extend to unauthorized work commissioned by the tenant without the landlord's knowledge or approval.
- Actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, not merely constructive knowledge or a duty to inspect, is required to impose liability on an out-of-possession landlord for hazards arising during the tenancy.
- A contractor's decision to perform additional work as a favor to the tenant, after being told not to by the landlord, does not create a triable issue of fact as to landlord approval or control.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record conclusively establishes that the landlord did not approve, know of, or have the ability to discover the hazardous condition created by unauthorized work.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the limits of landlord liability for injuries caused by contractors performing unauthorized work at the tenant's request. It reinforces that a landlord's retention of control over approved renovations does not create liability for all work performed by the contractor, particularly when the contractor acts outside the scope of the agreement and against the landlord's explicit instructions.
The ruling also underscores the importance of clear contractual documentation defining the scope of approved work and requiring landlord approval for changes. Landlords who maintain oversight of renovation projects but do not approve or know of unauthorized modifications are shielded from premises liability claims arising from those modifications.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket