22 Cal.App.5th 62
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Lupo owns a multi-tenant commercial building and leased ~5,000 sq. ft. to Wild Card Boxing Club for use as a boxing/athletic gym under a five‑year lease.
- Lupo performed only a cursory pre-lease walk‑through and had no ownership or operational control of Wild Card.
- On January 30, 2016, patron Omorishanla Olayinka suffered a fatal cardiac arrest while training at Wild Card; Wild Card had no AED on the premises.
- Plaintiffs (surviving spouse, child, and estate) sued Wild Card and Lupo for negligence and negligence per se for failure to provide/maintain an AED under Health & Safety Code § 104113.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Lupo, finding no statutory duty under § 104113 and no common‑law duty to provide or ensure an AED; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: § 104113’s definition of “health studio” does not encompass a landlord who merely leases space, and Rowland duty factors do not support imposing a common‑law duty on Lupo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a commercial landlord that leases space to a gym is a "health studio" under Health & Safety Code § 104113 and thus statutorily required to acquire/maintain an AED | Lupo agreed in the lease to allow use of its facility for physical exercise, so it qualifies as a "health studio" and must keep an AED | The statute applies to operators who permit use of their facilities/equipment to individuals on a membership basis and who control/maintain the premises; a passive landlord does not fit that definition | Held: No. The statutory definition requires permitting use of the landlord’s facilities/equipment on a membership basis and obligations (maintenance, training, recordkeeping) that a landlord leasing space cannot practically perform, so Lupo is not a "health studio" under § 104113. |
| Whether Lupo owed a common‑law duty to patrons to provide an AED on the premises | Landlord should be liable because patrons face heightened risk from strenuous exercise at a boxing gym | Landlord’s relationship to patrons is attenuated, burdens of providing/maintaining AEDs and statutory compliance are substantial, and foreseeability/other duty factors do not support imposing duty | Held: No. Applying Verdugo and Rowland factors, burden and attenuated control outweigh foreseeability; no duty to provide AED. |
| Whether Lupo had a duty to require as a lease condition that Wild Card provide an AED | Lupo should have specifically required in the lease that Wild Card install/maintain an AED | Lease required tenant to comply with all laws, including § 104113; absent signs Wild Card would disobey law, landlord may presume tenant compliance; assessing/risk‑mitigating every tenant’s business is an unreasonable burden | Held: No additional duty. The lease’s covenant to comply with law sufficed; Rowland factors (foreseeability that tenant would violate statute, closeness of connection, policy, burden) do not support imposing a separate duty on Lupo to ensure tenant obtained an AED. |
| Whether summary judgment for Lupo was improper given disputed facts about foreseeability or landlord knowledge | Plaintiffs argued issues of fact about foreseeability and landlord knowledge of gym risks precluded summary judgment | Lupo showed no evidence of possession/control, knowledge, or reason to predict tenant would breach statutory obligations; plaintiffs offered no evidence to create a triable issue on duty | Held: Summary judgment affirmed. Plaintiffs failed to establish the legal element of duty against Lupo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Verdugo v. Target Corp., 59 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 2014) (courts consider foreseeability and relative burden when imposing pre‑injury precautionary duties such as AEDs)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (factors for determining existence/scope of duty)
- Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc., 118 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (landlord duty principles; tenant’s possession attenuates landlord’s duty)
- Rotolo v. San Jose Sports & Entertainment, LLC, 151 Cal.App.4th 307 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (no close connection where defendants could not prevent sudden cardiac arrest during athletic activity)
- Stone v. Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (landlord’s ordinary duty is to ensure safety at tenancy start and repair known hazards thereafter)