[brief] **  Next, Plaintiff argues that [...] had a common-law duty to maintain the area of the parking lot where the Plaintiff fell.  Under the common law, a property owner has a duty to provide a “reasonably safe place to do that which is within the scope of the invitation,” including the duty to “use reasonable care to make the premises safe, including the duty to conduct a reasonable inspection to discover defective conditions. ”  *D’Alessandro v. Hartzel*, 422 N.J. Super. 575, 579 (App. Div. 2011).  However, when a property owner leases part, but not all, of the property to tenants and retains control of common areas of the property, the factor under *Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors*, 132 N.J. 426 (1993) must be examined to see whether the tenant owes a duty to maintain common areas.  Those factors—the relationship of the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution—all demonstrate that no duty exists here.  First, the relationship of the parties favors a finding of no duty.  The landlord and tenant have agreed between themselves how to apportion the responsibility for property maintenance with [...] being responsible for the common areas and [...] paying its *pro rata* share of the maintenance costs for those common area, along with the other tenants.  Second, the nature of the attendant risk—the potential to slip and fall on unseen ice—is significant, but it is an intermittent matter which primarily effects the common areas of the property and is separate and apart from the business engaged in by each of the tenants.  However, it is well suited to be handled by property management, which would naturally fall within the competence of [...] as the lessor.  Third, the opportunity and ability to exercise care factor favors a finding of no duty because consolidating the responsibility for maintenance of the common areas and assigning it to the landlord, permits the landlord to address the problem efficiently by hiring a dedicated snow and ice contractor like [...] to both monitor for snow activity and to treat the entire shopping center when needed.  Any individual unit lessee would be unlikely to easily or be regularly able to monitor the entirety of the property, including areas at a distance from the location of their individual units.  Assigning the duty to multiple tenants would also encourage confusion and inefficiencies, as multiple parties would have overlapping and potentially conflicting resolutions to the problem every time it snowed.  Finally, the public interest in the proposed solution is advanced by the same efficiencies discussed above.  The public’s interest would be in ensuring the proper maintenance in the public areas of the property, more specifically, the prompt and complete clearance and treatment of ice and snow conditions.  That can best, most efficiently, and most effectively be done by consolidating the responsibility for snow and ice maintenance and hiring a professional company like [...] to provide that service.  The alternative is for any number of individual unit lessees attempting to arrange for such maintenance on an ad hoc basis, with potentially confused and conflicting responses potentially leading to difficulties and delays in clearing the snow and ice conditions.  Thus, [...] was correct to find that no common law duty existed here.