legal news


Register | Forgot Password

STONE v. CENTER TRUST RETAIL PROPERTIES, INC

STONE v. CENTER TRUST RETAIL PROPERTIES, INC
02:22:2007

_


STONE v. CENTER TRUST RETAIL PROPERTIES,  INC


 


 


 


Filed 1/23/07


CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION


 


 


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION EIGHT







SHEILA STONE,


            Plaintiff and Respondent,


            v.


CENTER TRUST RETAIL PROPERTIES,  INC.,


            Defendant and Appellant.



      B181180


      (Los Angeles County


      Super. Ct. No. BC 287671)



            APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Jon  M. Mayeda, Judge.  Reversed and remanded.


            Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad and Wendy S. Albers; Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Steven J. Joffe and J. Walter Gussner, for Defendant and Appellant.


            Ward & Ward and Alexandra S. Ward; Law Offices of Bruce D. Kordic and Bruce D. Kordic, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


_________________________


            Commercial landlord Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc. appeals from the jury's six-figure damage award to Sheila Stone for the physical injuries she suffered in Center Trust's mall.  We reverse and remand for retrial.


FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY


            Appellant Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc. owned a Los Angeles retail mall in which the Gumboz Creole Cajun restaurant was a tenant.  In August 2001, the restaurant defaulted on its rent.  Two months later, Center Trust served the restaurant with a five-day notice to pay rent or quit, but the restaurant did neither.  In November, Center Trust filed an unlawful detainer complaint, and later that month took the restaurant's default.  On December  3, 2001, the unlawful detainer court entered a partial judgment for possession by Center Trust, and 10  days later issued a writ of possession.  â€





Description Where landlord has obtained judgment for, but has not taken, possession of premises, it owes tenant's guests a duty to inspect for defects at reasonable intervals. Where jury was not instructed as to when landlord's duty to inspect arose or what the required nature of inspections was, or that landlord could only be held liable if inspection would have resulted in discovery of defect resulting in plaintiff's injury, landlord was entitled to new trial.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale