Hadder v. Heritage Hill Manor, Inc.
2016 Ark. App. 303
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Sandra Hadder slipped and fell on damp carpet in apartment 108 at Heritage Hill Manor after a water heater in an upstairs unit leaked; she suffered injuries and sued Heritage for negligence.
- Heritage is an apartment complex oriented toward elderly residents; residents were permitted to have overnight “sitters.” Heritage’s manager testified under oath that it is not an assisted-living facility.
- After the leak, an on-site resident maintenance helper shut off the water, used a shop vacuum and placed fans; a housekeeper set out “Wet Floor” signs and warned people to be careful; Hadder helped mop and knew of the leakage.
- Hadder argued (1) Heritage was an assisted-living facility subject to heightened statutory duties, (2) Heritage owed and had breached a duty to clean/rope off the hazard (including by assuming a duty), (3) the caveat lessee rule did not bar recovery, and (4) the wet carpet was not open-and-obvious.
- Heritage moved for summary judgment asserting caveat lessee (no landlord duty absent agreement or assumption), that it was not an assisted-living facility, that Hadder knew or should have known of the danger, and that evidence offered by Hadder (internet listings, insurance declarations) was inadmissible/hearsay.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no genuine dispute of material fact that would impose a duty or show breach and that Hadder failed to produce admissible evidence that Heritage was an assisted-living facility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heritage is an "assisted-living facility" (triggering statutory duties) | Hadder: internet listings, chamber listing, and insurance paperwork show Heritage is an assisted-living facility | Heritage: manager’s sworn testimony says it is an apartment complex; internet/third-party listings are unreliable hearsay | Court: Held Heritage is an apartment complex as a matter of law for summary-judgment purposes; Hadder’s documents were inadmissible hearsay and did not create a factual dispute |
| Applicability of caveat lessee / landlord duty to tenant’s guest | Hadder: caveat lessee inapplicable because leak originated in different unit and Heritage undertook cleanup | Heritage: Arkansas codified caveat lessee (Ark. Code §18-16-110); no contractual duty; absent agreement or assumed duty, no liability | Court: Held caveat lessee applies; no contractual undertaking shown and no triable issue that a legally actionable assumption of duty existed |
| Whether Heritage assumed a duty and breached it by cleaning inadequately | Hadder: Heritage assumed duty by attempting cleanup and failed to do so reasonably | Heritage: cleanup was immediate and reasonable (shop vacuum, fans, mopping, wet-floor signs, verbal warnings); Hadder knew and participated | Court: Even assuming a duty was assumed, undisputed facts showed no breach—Heritage exercised ordinary care—so summary judgment proper |
| Admissibility & sufficiency of Hadder’s evidence / need for additional discovery | Hadder: discovery incomplete; factual issues remain and internet/insurer/chamber materials support her claim | Heritage: Hadder failed to comply with Rule 56(f) for additional discovery; proffered materials are hearsay/unreliable and cannot defeat summary judgment | Court: Denied Hadder’s informal discovery contention (no proper Rule 56(f) request); excluded the hearsay materials for summary-judgment purposes and found no admissible proof creating a triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton Cnty. v. Overland Dev. Co., 371 Ark. 559, 268 S.W.3d 885 (standard for summary judgment)
- Stalter v. Akers, 303 Ark. 603, 798 S.W.2d 428 (caveat lessee: third-party on leased property must show landlord’s contractual duty to repair)
- Propst v. McNeill, 326 Ark. 623, 932 S.W.2d 766 (recognition of caveat lessee doctrine in Arkansas)
- Yanmar Co. v. Slater, 2012 Ark. 36, 386 S.W.3d 439 (one who gratuitously assumes to act may incur duty to act carefully)
- Lloyd v. Pier W. Prop. Owners Ass’n, 2015 Ark. App. 487, 470 S.W.3d 293 (elements of negligence and scope of duty from an assumed undertaking)