Lloyd v. Pier West Property Owners Ass'n
2015 Ark. App. 487
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Gary Steve Lloyd was seriously injured after a balcony railing collapsed at a common area balcony of Pier West Condominiums in Hot Springs, Arkansas.
- Lloyd, a social guest at Unit D-4, fell about twelve feet after leaning against or losing balance on the balcony railing.
- Lloyd sued Pier West Property Owners Association (POA) for negligent maintenance of the balcony railing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of POA, finding Lloyd a licensee, no willful or wanton conduct, and no evidence POA knew of the dangerous condition.
- Lloyd appeals, arguing POA owed a duty of reasonable care to Lloyd, that duty extends to all on the property (invitee/licensee), and that POA’s insurance purchase evidences duty; record supplementation was ordered and provided.
- The court reverses in part and remands, holding Lloyd was a licensee but there was evidence POA assumed a duty of ordinary care to maintain the common areas, creating factual questions for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did POA owe a duty of ordinary care to Lloyd as a licensee? | Lloyd: POA owed duty to maintain and warn of dangers to licensees. | POA: no duty beyond not acting with willful or wanton conduct; no knowledge of defect. | Evidence of duty exists; summary judgment improper. |
| Did POA contractually or voluntarily assume the duty to maintain/repair the common areas? | Bylaws and maintenance obligations create assumed duty. | Contractual duties are disputed; no clear assumption of ordinary care. | Record shows POA assumed such duty; questions of breach remain. |
| Does the condominium bylaws framework impose a duty of ordinary care to common areas? | Bylaws require POA to repair/maintain common areas and provide insurance; breach could cause liability. | Bylaws do not plainly obligate ordinary care; dispute about scope. | Bylaws indicate an assumed duty to maintain; supports liability questions. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate on Lloyd's negligence claim? | There are genuine issues of material fact regarding duty and breach. | No duty or breach proven; standard supports summary judgment. | Summary judgment inappropriate; remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartley v. Sweetser, 319 Ark. 117 (Ark. 1994) (landlord duties to tenants on repair limited; can fix liability when contract to repair exists)
- Majewski v. Cantrell, 293 Ark. 360 (Ark. 1987) (landlord liability for repairs under contract; negligent performance possible)
- Steward v. McDonald, 330 Ark. 837 (Ark. 1997) (contractual obligation to repair may create duty of care)
- Chatman v. Mills, 257 Ark. 451 (Ark. 1975) (one who undertakes to act may owe duty of care)
- Moses v. Bridgeman, 355 Ark. 460 (Ark. 2003) (premises negligence summary judgment standard)
- Yanmar Co. v. Slater, 2012 Ark. 36 (Ark. 2012) (duty questions and legal standard for duty)
- Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 378 S.W.3d 109 (Ark. 2011) (duty and standard of care in premises scenarios)
- Majewski v. Cantrell, 737 S.W.2d 649 (Ark. 1987) (landlord liability for leased property under contract)