Opinion
In this premises liability action, Mario Garcia (Mario) and Esperanza Torres Garcia 1 appeal a summary judgment in favor of residential landowners, Michele Holt 2 and Niel Mamerto (Niel). 3 The trial court concluded the landowners owed no duty to Mario, a landscaper, who was injured by explosives brought on the property by the Mamertos’ tenant without their knowledge. The Garcias contend a month-to-month tenancy provides the landlord the right to enter and inspect the property at periodic intervals without actual notice of a need to inspect. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Mamertos owned residential property located in Escondido, California (the Premises), and leased the Premises to George Jakubec. 4 The original lease was for a one-year term beginning in October 2005. After one year, the lease became a month-to-month tenancy and the Mamertos could terminate the lease by giving written notice as provided by law. At some time during the tenancy, Jakubec created homemade explosives and stored explosive devices and materials on the Premises.
The Mamertos hired Mario in 2005 to maintain the landscaping at the Premises. Mario or his employees worked on the Premises at least once every *603 two weeks throughout the approximately five years leading up to the accident and never noticed anything suspicious or dangerous. On November 18, 2010, Mario was injured when he walked over unstable explosive material on the ground at the back side of the Premises and the material exploded under him.
The Garcias sued for premises liability, alleging the Mamertos were negligent in the maintenance of the Premises by allowing explosive materials to be kept on the Premises. 5 The Mamertos moved for summary judgment arguing they owed no duty to Mario because they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the explosive materials on the Premises, thus there was no foreseeable risk requiring an inspection.
In opposition, the Garcias argued the Mamertos had a duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect the Premises periodically once the lease became a month-to-month tenancy. The Garcias further argued there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether the Mamertos breached that duty.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Mamertos on the ground the Mamertos owed no duty to the Garcias absent actual knowledge of a dangerous condition on the Premises. The court ruled, “before liability may be thrust on a landlord for a third party’s injury due to a dangerous condition on the land, [a plaintiff] must show that the landlord had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition in question, plus the right and ability to cure the condition.” It was undisputed the Mamertos had no actual knowledge of the dangerous condition in this case. We construe the Garcias’ notice of appeal as being from the judgment entered October 2, 2014. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d);
Vitkievicz
v.
Valverde
(2012)
DISCUSSION
I
Standard of Review
A
“party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
(2001) 25
*604
Cal.4th 826, 850 [
II
Residential Landlord’s Liability to Third Parties
Duty is a necessary element of a cause of action for premises liability.
(Salinas
v.
Martin
(2008)
Public policy precludes landlord liability for a dangerous condition on the premises which came into existence after possession has passed to a tenant.
(Uccello v. Laudenslayer
(1975)
“[W]here a landlord has relinquished control of property to a tenant, a ‘bright line’ rule has developed to moderate the landlord’s duty of care owed to a third party injured on the property as compared with the tenant who enjoys possession and control. ‘ “Because a landlord has relinquished possessory interest in the land, his or her duty of care to third parties injured on the land is attenuated as compared with the tenant who enjoys possession and control. Thus, before liability may be thrust on a landlord for a third party’s injury due to a dangerous condition on the land, the plaintiff must show that the landlord had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition in question, plus the right and ability to cure the condition.” [¶] Limiting a landlord’s
*605
obligations releases it from needing to engage in potentially intrusive oversight of the property, thus permitting the tenant to enjoy its tenancy unmolested.’ ”
(Salinas v. Martin, supra,
The law has developed exceptions to this rule such as where the landlord volunteers to repair a defective condition, where the landlord fails to disclose defects of which he or she has actual knowledge but are unknown and not apparent to the tenant, where there is a nuisance on the property leased for public use at the time the lease is made or renewed, when there is a violation of a safety law, or where the injury occurs in an area where the landlord retains control.
(Uccello v. Laudenslayer, supra,
The Garcias contend when the lease became a month-to-month tenancy it renewed each month and the Mamertos had a right to periodically enter the Premises.
6
With the right to enter, the Garcias contend the Mamertos had a corresponding duty to make “reasonable periodic inspections” regardless of actual knowledge of a dangerous condition. The Garcias misconstrue the law. The obligation to inspect arises “only if [the landowner] had some reason to know there was a need for such action.”
(Mora
v.
Baker Commodities, supra,
It is undisputed the Mamertos did not have actual knowledge of the explosive materials on the Premises and the Garcias presented no evidence giving rise to a triable issue of fact about whether the Mamertos had a reason to know inspection was necessary. Neither Mario nor any of his employees found any indication of a dangerous condition during the five years they provided landscaping services. A repairman entered the Premises to replace the garbage disposal in September 2009 and reported to the Mamertos that everything was fine at the house. Niel also visited the Premises himself on one occasion and did not observe any problems. Niel’s experience managing real estate properties and the fact a fence needed to be replaced during the tenancy does not suggest the Mamertos had a reason to know there was a need to inspect the property. Applying the bright-line rule, the Mamertos cannot be held liable to the Garcias because the Mamertos had no actual knowledge of the dangerous condition.
*606 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The Mamertos shall recover their costs on appeal.
Notes
When appropriate, we refer to plaintiffs together as the Garcias.
Michele Holt has changed her name to Michele Mamerto since the complaint was filed.
Mr. Mamerto was erroneously named in the complaint as “Neil” Mamerto. When appropriate, we refer to defendants together as the Mamertos.
Mr. Jakubec was erroneously named in the complaint as George “Jakubek.”
Esperanza Garcia also brought a cause of action for loss of consortium. The trial court ruled Esperanza Garcia had no cause of action for loss of consortium because Mario had no cause of action in tort. The Garcias did not address this issue on appeal.
The Mamertos contend the continuation of the tenancy on a month-to-month basis was a mere extension of the original lease rather than periodic renewals. Given our conclusion, we need not resolve the nature of how the tenancy continued.