Title: Wheeler v. Phillips Dev. Corp.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Rebecca WHEELER v. PHILLIPS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION and Evergreen Four Limited
Partnership

97-187                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered July 7, 1997


1.   Judgment -- summary judgment -- when appropriate -- movant's burden. -- It
     is appropriate to sustain a grant of summary judgment if the
     record before the trial court shows that there is no genuine
     issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled
     to judgment as a matter of law; the movant bears the burden of
     showing that there is no issue of material fact; all evidence
     must be viewed in light most favorable to the party resisting
     the motion, and all doubts and inferences must be resolved in
     her favor; she may not, however, rest upon the mere allegation
     of her pleadings, but her response by affidavits or other
     evidence as provided by Ark. R. Civ. P. 56 must show
     specifically that there is a genuinely disputed issue of
     material fact.

2.   Landlord & tenant -- tenant not invitee on landlord's land -- has equal
     right to exclusive possession. -- A tenant is not an invitee on her
     landlord's premises but has a right equal to that of the
     landlord to exclusive possession of the property.

3.   Landlord & tenant -- duties -- Massachusetts rule -- when grant of summary
     judgment for landlord will be sustained. -- Since 1969, the supreme
     court has adhered to what is known as the Massachusetts rule;
     that is, that a landlord has no duty to a tenant to remove
     hazards from common areas unless such terms are spelled out in
     the lease; where there is no evidence of an agreement or
     assumption of duty that removes a landlord from the general
     rule, the supreme court will sustain a grant of summary
     judgment for the landlord.

4.   Landlord & tenant -- duty -- question whether duty owed always one of law.
     -- The question whether a duty is owed is always a question of
     law and never one for the jury.

5.   Judgment -- no evidence of agreement removing landlord from general rule -
     - trial court correctly granted motion for summary judgment. -- Where
     appellant offered no evidence of an agreement removing
     appellees from the general rule concerning the landlord's duty
     to the tenant but merely showed that appellees were
     maintaining the grounds of the apartment community, the
     supreme court did not agree with appellant's argument that
     such measures reflected an assumption of a duty to keep the
     common areas safe; the court held that the trial court was
     correct in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment and
     affirmed.


     Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; Harold Erwin, Judge;
affirmed.
     W. Christopher Paul, for appellant.
     Snellgrove, Laser, Langley, Lovett & Culpepper, by: P. Sanders
Huckabee, for appellees.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     Appellant Rebecca Wheeler was injured when she stepped on a
rock that was on the sidewalk of her apartment community, which is
owned by appellees Phillips Development Corporation and Evergreen
Four Limited Partnership.  Freda Morris Hulen, the apartment
manager, was operating a weedeater in the vicinity at the time. 
Appellant, who is a diabetic and legally blind, filed a complaint
alleging that appellees had a duty of care to keep the premises
safe because it is occupied primarily by elderly, handicapped, and
disabled persons.  She alleged that Ms. Hulen knew or should have
known that the rock was on the sidewalk and that appellees, through
their agent, breached their duty of care to her in failing to keep
the sidewalk clear of dangerous objects. 
     Appellees moved for summary judgment, denying that they owed
her a higher duty of care than that of a landlord to a tenant, and
arguing that appellant had failed to present a genuine issue of
material fact on the allegation of negligence.  An affidavit by Ms.
Hulen accompanied the motion, stating that she had not caused a
rock to be on the sidewalk, and that she was unaware of any rocks
on the sidewalk.
     In her response to the motion, appellant argued that Ms.
Hulen's statement that it was her duty to manage the apartments and
maintain the lawn, stating further that "I mow, weedeat, and then
clean off the sidewalk" created a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether appellees had assumed a duty to keep the area safe. 
Appellant offered in support of her motion an affidavit from Leo
Roger Cox, who stated that he saw Ms. Hulen operating the weedeater
ten to fifteen feet from the sidewalk where appellant was injured,
that Ms. Hulen knew or should have known that the rock was there,
and that Ms. Hulen was the only person he saw in the area. 
Appellant also stated in her own affidavit that Ms. Hulen knew or
should have known that the rock was there.  However, appellant did
not offer any lease agreement, ground rules, or any other document
or evidence to reflect that appellees had assumed a higher standard
of care for their tenants than applicable to a normal landlord-
tenant relationship.  The evidence offered in response to
appellee's motion for summary judgment failed to raise a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether appellees assumed a duty to
keep the common areas safe, and we agree with the ruling of the
trial court.
      It is appropriate to sustain a grant of summary judgment if
the record before the trial court "shows that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law."  Tullock v. Eck, 301 Ark. 564, 567,
785 S.W.2d 31, 46 (1993); Ark. R. Civ. P. 56(c).  Appellees, as
movant for summary judgment, bear the burden of showing that there
is no issue of material fact.  Gleghorn v. Ford Motor Credit Co.,
293 Ark. 289, 737 S.W.2d 451 (1987).  All evidence must be viewed
in light most favorable to appellant, as she is the party resisting
the motion, and she is also entitled to have all doubts and
inferences resolved in her favor.  Tullock, supra.  However, she
may not rest upon the mere allegation of her pleadings, but her
response by affidavits or other evidence as provided by Ark. R.
Civ. P. 56 must show specifically that there is a genuinely
disputed issue of material fact. Guthrie v. Kemp, 303 Ark. 74,