Lead Opinion
— Commercial landlord Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc., appeals from the jury’s six-figure damage award to Sheila Stone for the physical injuries she suffered in Center Trust’s mall. We reverse and remand for partial retrial.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc., owned a Los Angeles retail mall in which the Gumboz Creole Cajun restaurant was a tenant. In August 2001, the restaurant defaulted on its rent. Two months later, Center Trust served thе restaurant with a five-day notice to pay rent or quit, but the restaurant did neither. In November, Center Trust filed an unlawful detainer complaint, and later that month took the restaurant’s default. On December 3, 2001, the unlawful detainer court entered a partial judgment for possession by Center Trust, and 10 days later issued a writ of possession. “On or about” December 27, 2001, Center Trust was “restored [to] possession of the premises.”
A week аnd a half later, respondent Sheila Stone hosted a party at the restaurant, which was still operating.
Stone’s ankle fracture required three operations to repair. While recovering from one of the surgeries, she wore a cast that made walking awkward and fell and broke her wrist, which required two operations to repair. All told, Stone endured five operations and suffers from permanently diminished range of motiоn and lingering pain.
Stone sued appellant Center Trust and the restaurant’s owner for her injuries. Center Trust cross-complained against the owner for indemnity, but he was never served with either Stone’s complaint or Center Trust’s cross-complaint and was eventually dismissed from the proceedings.
DISCUSSION
1. Center Trust’s Duties as a Landlord
Center Trust owned the mall in which the restaurant was a tenant. All landowners, including landlords, must use reasonable care to protect people who come onto their propеrty. (Civ. Code, § 1714; CACI Nos. 1000, 1001, 1006.) For landlords, reasonable care ordinarily involves making sure the property is safe at the beginning of the tenancy, and repairing any hazards the landlord learns about later. As the court explained in Mata v. Mata (2003)
Limiting a landlord’s obligations releases it from needing to engage in potentially intrusive oversight of the property, thus permitting the tenant to enjoy its tenancy unmolested. A landlоrd’s move to evict a defaulting tenant unsettles their relationship, however, requiring a rebalancing of their rights and duties. Stone argued in the trial court that Center Trust’s duty of care should have expanded to include inspecting the restaurant, during which it would have discovered a water leak. Center Trust contends nothing should have changed, however, leaving it with no duty to inspect the restaurant or
The court instructed the jury that a landlord must act reasonably to correct defects it knew, or should have known, about. (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991)
It is one thing for a landlord to leave a tenant alone who is complying with its lease. It is entirely different, however, for a landlord to ignore a defaulting tenant’s possible neglect of property. Neglected proрerty endangers the public, and a landlord’s detachment frustrates the public policy of keeping property in good repair and safe. To strike the right balance between safety and disfavored self-help, we hold that Center Trust’s duty to inspect attached upon entry of the judgment of possession in the unlawful detainer action and included reasonable periodic inspections thereafter. (Biakanja v. Irving (1958)
Not only did Center Trust have the duty to inspect, it had the right. Martinez v. Bank of America (2000)
Center Trust cites decisions that a landlord ordinarily is not liable to a tenant’s guests and invitees for dangerous conditions which arise on the property after the tenant occupies it. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer, supra,
At the time of trial, the parties and the court lacked guidance from case law about the duty to inspect. Accordingly, the parties did not appropriately shape their trial presentations to help the jury pin down the timing of Center Trust’s duty to inspect, the nature of any inspections, any impediments thereto and whether Center Trust would have discovered the leak during those inspections. We cannot tell from the record at what point, starting from the restaurant’s default in rent in August until Stone’s accident in January, the jury concluded Center Trust’s duty attachеd. Consequently, the jury might have concluded Center Trust should have inspected the property shortly after the restaurant’s August default, instead of, as we hold, the entry of the judgment of
2. Economic Damages
Center Trust contends the evidence did not support the amount of Stone’s economic damages award. Her economic damages consisted of medical expenses and lost past and future wages. Center Trust does not challenge Stone’s lost wages, but contends she offered no evidence that her medical expenses were reasonable. According to Center Trust, Stone’s evidence covered only the amount of her bills, but not their medical legitimacy. Center Trust focuses its argument particularly on a $100,214.05 medical services lien filed by San Bernardino County. (Gov. Code, § 23004.1; Civ. Code, § 3045.1.) Urging us to disregard the lien as insufficient to establish reasonableness by itself, Center Trust asks that we substantially reduce Stone’s recovery in the amount of about $100,000.
We decline Center Trust’s invitation because we do not need to rely on the lien to uphold the jury’s awаrd. The verdict form stated Stone’s economic and noneconomic damages, but did not identify her damages with any more detail than those two categories. The form included no special jury findings about different types of economic damages, such as lost wages and medical expenses. Thus, as long as the record supports the total amount of economic damages, regardless of whether thаt evidence related to medical expenses or lost wages, we must affirm that part of the award. (Greer v. Buzgheia (2006)
Here, the lost wages evidence supported the jury’s award. Up to the time of trial, Stone’s injuries made her unemployable. Her expert economist calculated her lost past wages as $78,561. He also calculated the present value of lost future income of at least $267,971 if she had worked until she was 62 years old. He explained that he assumed retirement at 62 based on government statistics that showed a woman of Stone’s age worked on average only 11 more years. We note, however, that the jury was free to reject the economist’s assumption about the number of years Stone had intended to work, particularly given her testimony that she had hoped to work until she was 65. Arithmetic shows that three morе working years from age 62 to 65
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for retrial of liability only. Each side to bear its own costs on appeal.
Notes
The restaurant did not permanently go out of business until sometime between the day after Stone’s party and eight days later. Appellant’s motion to take evidence or for judicial notice of related faсts is denied as unnecessary to a resolution of the appeal.
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting. — I respectfully dissent.
Today the majority announces a new rule of law. Neither side advocates this new rule. Appellant and defendant Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc., a landlord, is not urging us to expand the duties and liabilities of landlords. Respondent and plaintiff Sheila Stone would like us simply to affirm the jury’s verdict for her and the judgment in her favor. Instead, we reverse and rеmand. So we leave the adversarial process behind with this creation of new law.
Center Trust owned a mall. One of the tenants in the mall was a restaurant. The tenant and operator of the restaurant stopped paying rent, and Center Trust eventually initiated eviction proceedings. Center Trust obtained a writ of possession but the sheriff had not served the writ when Stone slipped on water and fell, injuring her ankle. Whilе Center Trust had not regained physical possession of the restaurant on the date Stone fell, it had said in a legal document that it had been “restored to possession” of the premises about a week earlier. The trial court instructed the jury that a landlord must act reasonably to correct defects that it knew or should have known about. The jury obviously found that Center Trust knew or should have known of the water оn the floor of the restaurant.
In my view, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the applicable law. CACI Nos. 400, 401, 405, 406, 411, 413, 430, 431, 1000, 1001, 1003, 1004, and 1006 set forth the governing law. The trial court gave all of these
The jury applied this governing law to the facts it found, based on all the evidence presented at trial, and returned a six-figure verdict for the plaintiff. The majority apparently concludes — although it does not say so — that the evidence at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. If substantial evidence supported the verdict, the majority could simply affirm the judgment. Instead, the majority extends and expands the law to create a new legal duty. But Stone did not ask for any special instructiоn on a “duty to inspect” beyond what the CACI’s say. Nor has she cross-appealed.
The majority says that, “[a]t the time of trial, the parties and the court lacked guidance from case law about the duty to inspect.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 614.) This is another way of saying that no one knew about this standard that only today comes into being. The trial court cannot be faulted for failing to instruct the jury on law that did not exist when thе trial court tried the case.
The majority says that this court’s decision in Martinez v. Bank of America (2000)
The court said the issue was “whether a bank, which acquires real property through foreclosure but which does not have possession or control of the property, has a duty to inspect the property and remedy its defects.” (Martinez,
The majority here observes that Center Trust had a right to inspect the premises. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 614.) Indeed, the lease authorized the landlord “to enter the Premises at all times during usual business hours for the purpose of inspecting the same.” The lease also gave the landlord the right, upon the tenant’s default, “to reentеr the Premises and occupy the whole or any part thereof . . . .” The majority, however, then finds a duty to inspect based on this right to inspect. This reasoning turns Martinez on its head. The jury properly concluded that Center Trust knew or should have known of the condition of the property. The trial court said the same thing in denying Center Trust’s motion for a directed verdict. The jury and the trial court apparently reached this conclusion based on all the evidence, including the fact thаt the tenant was blatantly engaging in a use of the premises that the lease forbade — the operation of a dance club — when the lease specified a sitdown restaurant. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
Moreover, if the relations between landlords and tenants are to be realigned, the California Legislature is the right entity to consider this change. Relying on the Legislature would offer advantages. First, the Legislature is in a better position to determine whether this change is beneficial social policy. The majority opinion seeks to increase public safety by increasing liability. Is this change worth the cost? I do not know. There will be costs, no doubt. That is the point of imposing duties on landlords: to force them to spend more time and resources inspecting tenant premises in malls. These costs might be considerable. After all, there are many malls in California. I have no way to determine whether the savings in accident costs would offset these higher costs to mall landlords and, ultimately, to consumers. If so, then the legal change would be attractive, and might appeal strongly to our legislators. If not, then this change would cause a net increase in the costs of living in California.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 30, 2008, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 27, 2008, SI64971.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the California Constitution.