Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Wake of Shields: Broader Implications for Decision on Commercial Landlord Liability
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently revisited an oft-contested issue in the area of premises liability: whether a commercial landlord owes a duty to its tenant's business invitees to maintain the premises, under a triple net lease, where the tenant is in exclusive possession of the demised premises. See, Shields v. Ramslee Motors (A-53-18) (081969). The court offered some clarity on this issue, but the decision ultimately leaves many questions unanswered and calls into doubt the continued viability of prior case law.
In Shields, the plaintiff was delivering a letter to Ramslee Motors, a used car dealership. This rendered the plaintiff a business invitee of the tenant. He slipped and fell on snow and ice on the driveway of the demised premises, sustaining bodily injuries. Plaintiff settled with the tenant and proceeded with his claims against the commercial landlord.
The court analyzed two key provisions in the lease between Ramslee Motors and the landlord — a "triple net" lease, which is generally defined as a lease in which a commercial tenant is responsible for "maintaining the premises and for paying all utilities, taxes, and other charges associated with the property." N.J. Indus. Props. v. Y.C. & V.L., 100 N.J. 432, 434 (1985). Pursuant to Section 3:04 of the lease, the tenant agreed to accept the premises "AS IS" and was solely responsible for maintenance and repair as if it were the de facto owner. Under Section 11:03, the landlord retained the right to enter the premises in the event of an emergency and to make repairs that were reasonably necessary for the safety and prevention of injury.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.