P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 4834

W A L T E R H O L M E S; L I SA H O L M E S, H us band and W i fe,

A p p e llan ts

v. KI M CO RE AL T Y C OR P OR AT I ON;

and L OWE’ S HOME C E NT E R I NC OR P OR AT E D, A corpor at i on of the St at e of N or t h C ar ol i na, A ut hor i zed

t o d o b u s i n e s s i n N e w J e r s e y; D efe ndant/ T hi r d Par t yPl ai nt i ff,

v. PR I C E L E G A C Y C O R PO R A T I O N , as l andl or d s u c c e s s o r b ym e rg e r t o P ri c e E n te rp ri s e s , In c .,

a M ary l and C orpor at i on, T hi r d Par tyD efe ndant/ For t h Par t yPl ai nt i ff,

v.2 DA VI D FLA CK , d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s BO UN TI FUL AC RES; GEN ERA L CA SUA LTY I NSU RA NC E

CO M PA N I ES, F ou rth P artyD efen dan t s.

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D

. C

. N um ber : 07- cv- 00961) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R ober tB

. K ugl er

A r gued D ece m ber16, 2009 Be f o r e : F I S HE R, HAR DI M AN a n d VAN AN T WER P E N,

C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 17, 2010) R ober tG

. D evi ne ( A r gued) W h i t e & W i l l i a ms 457 H addonfi el d R oad Sui t e 400, L i ber t yV i ew C herr yH i l l , N J 08034- 0000 A t t orneys f

or App el l ees K i m co R ealt y C orp and Low e’s H

om e C tr, I

nc. B enj ami n G ol ds t ei n ( A r gued) St anl eyN

. D r i nkw at er D rin k w a ter & G o ld ste in3 277 W hi t e H or s e Pi ke Sui t e 200 A t co, N J 08004 A t t orneys f

or App el l an t

s W alter H olm es andL isa H olm es F

. H erb ert O w en s, III Sw eene y& Sheehan 216 H addon A venue Sent r yO ffi ce Pl aza , Sui t e 701 W es t m ont , N J 08108- 0000 A t t or neys f

orThi r d P ar t

y-Appel l ee Pri ce Legac y C or p. M aur o C

. C as ci L aw O ffi ces of M aur o C

. C as ci 739 L eonar dvi l l e R oad P. O

. B ox 90 L eonar do, N J 07737- 0000 At t o r n e y s f o rNot Pa r t y - Ap p e l l e e Dav i d

Fl a c k , DBA B ount i f ulA cr es

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge

. T hi s d i v e r s i t ya c t i o n r e q u i r e s u s t o p r e d i c twhe t h e rt he St at e of N ew J er s ey w o u ld i m pos e a c om m on l aw dut yon aT he r ecor d s ugges t s t hatSpor t s A ut hor it y w as par tof 1 t he S ho pp i ng C enter , bu t i t i s un cl ear w hether i t w as i n b usi ness a t th e tim e o f

H o lm e s’s a c c id e n t.

4 t enant i n a m ul t i

- t enant s hoppi ng cent ert o m ai nt ai n t he parki ng l otow ned byt he l andl or d. I. O n J anuary 20, 2005, W al t er H ol m es dr ove t o a s hoppi ng cent ernearR out e 73 i n M apl e Shade, N ew J er s ey( t he Shoppi ng C e n ter ), co n sis tin g o f

a p a rk in g lo t an d se v e ra l b u s in e ss e s in stan d -alon e b u il d ing s, inclu d ing L o w e’s H o m e C en ter, B all y ’s To t a l F i t n e s s , a n d M a t t r e s s Gi a n t
. Th e b u s i n e s s e s we r e s o me 1 di sta nce a par t , w i t h t he entr ance t o B al l y ’ s l ocat ed s ever al hundr ed fe etfr om t he m ain en tr ance of Low e’ s , and the entr ance t o M at t r ess G i anteven f ar t heraw ay . H ol m es par ked i n t he ar ea of

t he parki ng lot c lose s tt o L ow e’ s . T hi s ar ea con t ai ned shop ping cartcorr al s dis play i ng si gn s st at i ng : “P l ease keep ourparki ng l ot s s afe by r etur ni ng y ourcart
. T hank y ou for s h o p p in g a t L o w e ’s .” A ft er m aki ng a purc has e at L ow e’ s , H ol m es w as pus hi ng h is s h o p p in g c a rt to h is c a r w h e n h e f e ll o n “ ice a n d /o r sn o w ” in t he parki ng l ot
. A not hercus t om ercame t o H ol m es’s ai d and h e lp e d h im r e tu rn to L o w e ’s to re p o rt th e a c c id e n t an d o b tain m ed ical assis tan ce . S h o rt lyaf ter th e a cc iden t, L o w e’s third p artyinsu ran ce ad m inistrator, Sp ec ial tyR isk S erv ices (S R S ), cont act ed H ol m es and hi s at t or ney , s eeki ng i nfor m at i on about t he ac ci dent and H ol m es ’ s t heoryof Low e’ s l i abi l i t y . T her e w asH o lm es’s w i fe, L i s a H ol m es , i s al s o a pl ai nt i ff i n t he 2 c a s e , a l l e g i n g a c l a i m f

o rl o s s o f c o n s o r t i u m. 5 s om e addi t i onal corr es pondence betw een SR S and H ol m es and h is a tto rn e yd u rin g th e e ig h tee n m o n th s f o llo w in g th e a c c id e n t. O n Jan u ary10, 2007, H ol m es s ued Low e’ s fornegl i gent m ai nt enanc e of the parki ng l ot
. A ft ert he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons 2 had expi r ed, L ow e’ s i nfor m ed H ol m es t hat i t w as a t enantof the Shoppi ng C ent er , nott he ow nerof the r eal es t at e w her e H ol m es slip p e d a n d f

e ll. A lm o stfou r y ears befo re H olm es sl i pp ed an d fell, L ow e’ s had ent er ed i nt o a l eas e agr eement ( L eas e) w i t h P ri ce L eg ac y C orpor at i on fort he us e of a r et ai l fac i l i t yw i t hi n t he S h o p p in g C e n ter . U n d e r th e ter m s o f th e L e a se , a ll t e n a n ts in th e S h o p p in g C e n ter w e re d e m ise d th e in ter io r sp a c e o f th e ir i ndi vi dual bui l di ngs and enj oy ed a non- excl us i ve ri ght t o us e the park ing l otand othercomm on ar eas . U ndert he Leas e, “C om m on A r ea” w as defi ned as “the Pr i m aryPar ki ng A r ea, t he r emai nderof the par ki ng ar eas i n t he Shoppi ng C ent er , s ervi ce dr i ves , acc es s r oads

. . . t he ent r ance s and exi t s of the Shoppi ng C ent er , and al l ot her ar eas t hat m ay be provi ded by L andl or d for t he gene r al us e i n comm on of t he t enant s of the Shoppi ng C ent er and t heir

. . . i nv i t ees. ” L ease § 8 (a) (iii). T he L ease al so pr ovi ded that“Tenant , i t s . . . i nvi t ees and cust om er s s hal l have t he r i ght to u se, i n comm on w i t h al l otheroccupa nt s of the S ho pp i ng C enterand t heirres pecti ve . . . i nv i t ees and cust om ers , w i t houtchar ge, al l C om m on A r eas and C om m on Fa cil i t i es of the S h o p p ing C en ter. ” L ea se § 8 (f).Pr i c e Leg a c ya pp a r e nt l ys ol d the p ro pe r t yt o PL 3 M apl es hade LL C c/ o D R A A d v isors L L C sh o rt lyb ef o re Ja n u ary 2005. I n D ece m ber2008, dur i ng ar gum ent b ef o r e the D i s t r i ct C our ton t he mot i ons fors um m ary j udgm ent , t he part i es s t i l l had 6 S e c ti o n 8 (i) o f

th e L e a se re q u ire d th e lan d lo rd to m ai nt ai n t he C om m on A r eas , i ncl udi ng s now r emoval

. I n tur n, eac h t enantw as r equi r ed t o paya pro r at a shar e of com m on ar ea m ai nt enanc e cos t s . L eas e § 8( j )

. Fi nal l y , t he Leas e r equi r ed the l andl or d t o “carry orcaus e t o be ca r r i ed comm er ci al gener al l i abi l i t yi ns ur ance . . . upon al l C om m on A r eas and C om m on Faci l i t i es ( not i ncl udi ng t he D emi s ed Pr emi s es ) , nami ng T enant as a n ad d it ion al i n su red

. . . . ” L ea se § 1 0 (c). I n O ct ober2004, Pr i ce Legac ycontr act ed w i t h B ount i ful A cr es t o r emove snow fr om t he C om m on A r eas of the Shoppi ng C ent er . T he agr eement pr ovi ded for“moni t or [i ng of] t he s i t e 24 hour s a day , 7 day s a w eek dur i ng t he s now s eas on fors now a n d /o r ic e c o n d iti o n s,” a n d f o r d isp a tch o f e q u ip m e n t to th e site t o “contr ol t hes e con d it ions

. ” D ur i ng t he w i nt ers eas on, B o u n tifu l A c re s k e p t eq u ip m e n t at th e site , an d d e d ica ted a f u lltim e f o re m a n to th e S h o p p in g C e n ter , w ith re sp o n sib ili tyf o r a ll s now m ai nt enanc e ac t i vi t i es . O n J anuar y 1 9, 2005, t he day befor e H ol m es ’ s acc i dent , B ount i ful A cr es had plow ed and sal t ed the parki ng l ot and sho veled t he si dew al ks. W hen H ol m es l earned t hat L ow e’ s di d notow n t he r eal e s t a t e u p o n wh i c h h e f

e l l , h e a me n d e d h i s c o mp l a i n tt o a d d t wo ent i t i es s us pect ed of ow ni ng t he parki ng l ot : Pr i ce L egacyand K i m co R eal t yC orpor at i on. T hi s amendm entcame t oo l at e, 3n o ti d e n t i f i e d c o n c l u s i v e l yt h e o wn e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y a tt h e t i me o f H o lm e s’s a c c id e n t. 7 how ever , s o t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entfor bot h ent i t i es beca us e t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had expi r ed. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so grant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent for Lo w e’s , fi ndi ng t hatN ew J er s eyw oul d noti m pos e a dutyon a t enantfor m ainten an ce o f a m u lt i- tena n t park ing lo t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt rul ed fr om t he benc h: I n t hi s s i tuat i on undert he E r i e d o c trin e I ha v e to p red ictw h at th e N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rt wo u l d d o wi t h t h i s . An d a l t h o u g h t h e S up r e me C o u rt o f N e w Je rse yh a s e x ten d e d li a b ili tyin s om e verys peci fi c s i tuat i ons bey ond t he ac tual p re m ise s, I d o n ’t th in k th e yw o u ld d o so in th is case b ecaus e of the mul t i

- t enantus e of thi s l ot and, t her efor e, I ’ m goi ng t o gr antt he m o t i on for s um m aryj udgm entforL ow e’ s . I do notfi nd t hat L o w e’s h ad an yd u tyw h atso ev er.

I f u rth e r d o n ’t f

in d u n d e r th e f

a c ts p re se n ted to th e C o u rt th a t L o w e ’s a ss u m e d a n yd u tyo v e r th is p a r k i n g l o tt o ma i n t a i n i tf r e e o f i c e a n d s n o w. (M o t. H r’ g T r. 5 3 , D e c . 5 , 2 0 0 8 .)8 H o lm e s a p p e a ls on ly th e g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to L ow e’ s . T h e D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s m at t er pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1332, and w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. II. W e e x erc ise d e n o v o rev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s sum m aryj ud gm ent and v i ew t he f act s i n the l i gh tm ost f a v o ra b le to H o lm e s , th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . S e e Ko p e c v . T a te , 3 6 1 F .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e e x iste n c e o f a d u tyis g e n e ra lly a m a tte r o f

la w . C arvalho v. T

oll B ros. & D evel op ers , 675 A

. 2d 209, 212 ( N

. J

. 1996)

. B eca us e the ques ti o n of a t enant ’ s comm on l aw dut yt o m ai nt ai n a m ul t i

- t enant par ki ng l ot h a s n o t b e e n a d d r e s s e d b yt h e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me Co u r t , we m u st “ p re d ict h o w th e N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld ru le if pr es ent ed w i t h t hi s cas e. ” R epola v. Mor bark I ndus

. , I nc. , 934 F. 2d 48 3, 48 9 ( 3d Ci r . 19 91 )

. I n p r e di c t i ng ho w t he hi gh e st sta te c o u rt w o u ld d e c id e a n iss u e , w e lo o k to a n a lo g o u s s tate cour t ca ses and “[ i ] n t he abs ence of an a ut hor i t at i ve pr onouncementbya s t at e’ s hi ghes t cour t , w e m ay gi ve s er i ous c o n s id e ra tio n to th e o p in io n o f a n in te rm e d ia te a p p e lla te c o u rt .” A e tn a C a s. & S u r. C o . v. Fa rr e ll , 8 5 5 F .2 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). W e m a ya lso lo o k to “ sc h o lar ly t r eat i s es , t he R es t at ement of L aw , and ger m ane law revi ew ar t i cl es . ” McKenna v. O r tho P har m . C or p. , 622 F. 2d 657, 662- 6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) (f

o o tn o tes o m itt e d ). “[ R ]e lev a n t sta te pr ece dent s m us tbe s crut i ni zed w i t h an ey e t ow ar d t he br oad pol i ci es t hat i nfor m ed t hos e adj udi cat i ons , and t o t he doctr i nal t r ends w hi ch theyevi nce. ” Id

. at662.9 A. T he thr esho ld i nqui r yi n a negl i gence act i on i s w hether t he de f e n d a n t o wed t h e p l a i n t i f f a d u t y o f c a r e . Und e r N ew Jerse ylaw , “w h e th e r a p erso n o w es a d u tyo f re aso n ab le ca re to w a rd a n o th e r tu rn s o n w h e th e r th e im p o sitio n o f su c h a d u ty s at i s fi es an abi di ng s ens e of ba s i c fai rness underal l of the c ir c u m s ta n c e s in lig h t o f c o n s id e ra t i o n s o f

p u b lic p o lic y .” Monaco v . Ha r t

z Mount ai n C or

p. , 84 0 A

. 2d 82 2, 83 3 (N

. J. 2004) ( quot i ng H

op ki ns v. Fox & L azo R ealtors , 625 A

. 2d 1110 (N

. J. 1 9 93) )

. T hi s i nqui r yr equi r es t he bal anci ng of s ever al fac t or s i nclud ing “t he r el at i ons hi p of the part i es , t he natur e of t he att end an t r i s k, t he oppor tuni t yand abi l i t yt o exer ci s e ca r e, and the p u b li c i nt er es ti n t he pr opos ed s ol ut i on. ” I d. ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion s o m itted). H olm es corr ect l yno t es that N ew Jer sey places a r el at i vel ybr oad dutyon comm er ci al l andow ner s t o ens ur e the s afe i ngr es s and egr es s of thei r patr ons . I n t he l andmar k cas e of St ew ar tv. 104 W

a l l ace Str eet

, I nc. , 43 2 A

. 2d 88 1, 88 7 (N

. J. 1981) , N ew J er s eyr ever s ed i t s “no l i abi l i t y ” rul e and e xt ended a c o m m e rc ial la n d o w n e r’s d u tyo f c a re to in c lu d e th e sid e w a lk abut t i ng i t s pr oper t y , even w hen t he si dew al k i s nei t herow ned nor contr ol l ed by t he l andow ner . T he courti dent i fi ed a number of publ i c pol i cycons i der at i ons s uppor t i ng t he i m pos i t ion of l i abi l i t y , i ncl udi ng: ( 1) comm er ci al landow ner s r ece i ve cons i der abl e bene fi t s fr om and ri ght s t o us e t he s i dew al ks , over a n d a b o v e th o se o f

th e p u b lic; (2 ) th e “ n o lia b ili ty ” ru le un derm i nes t he go al s of t ortl aw by“l e[av i ng ] w i t ho ut r ecou rs e m anyi nnocentpar t i es w ho s uffe r ed s er i ous i nj ur i es beca us e of s i dew al k defe ct s ”; ( 3) t he “no l i abi l i t y ” rul e pr ovi des no10 i ncent i ve t o abut t i ng pr oper t yow ner s t o r ep ai rdet er i or at ed s i dew al ks and pr eventi nj ur i es ; ( 4) l andow ner s ar e i n an i deal p o s i t i o n t o i n s p e c ta n d r e p a i rs i d e w a l k s a b u t t i n g t h e i rp r o p e r t y; and ( 5) a N ew J er s eys t atut e author i zes m uni ci pal i t i es t o m ake a b u ttin g la n d o w n e rs re s p o n s ib le f o r s id e w a l k re p a ir

. Stew art , 4 3 2 A

. 2 d at 8 8 4 , 8 8 6 -88

. T w o y ea rs af ter Stew art , t he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our thel d t hat t he dut y t o m ai nt ai n s i dew al ks i n a r eas onabl ys afe condi t i on i ncl udes a dut yt o r emove a c c u m u la tio n s o f

s n o w a n d ic e . Mi r

z a v. F i lm or e C or

p. , 456 A

. 2d 5 1 8 , 5 2 1 ( N. J

. 1 9 8 3 ) ( “ Th e ma n y i n n o c e n t p l a i n t i f f s t hat s uffe ri nj ur ybeca us e of unr eas onabl e ac cumul at i ons s houl d not b e l e f t wi t h o u t r e c o u r s e . ” )

. In the y ea r s s i nce St e w art , N ew J er s ey cour t s have appl i ed t he cas e t o br oaden the dutyof car e ow edb yl andow ner s and t enant s i n excl us i ve pos s es s i on for th e in g re ss a n d e g re ss o f th e ir c u sto m e rs. In th e se c a se s, c o u rts h a v e re jec ted la c k o f

c o n tro l o v e r th e p re m ise s a s a d e f e n se to im p o sit ion o f a du ty o f ca re . S ee Mo naco , 840 A

. 2d at831 ( “[I ]n a l ong l i ne of c as es , ourcour t s have e xt ended a c o m m e rc ial la n d o w n e r’s d u ty , w h e n w a rra n ted b y th e f a c ts, to cas es i n w hi ch the l andow ner had no contr ol overt he dange r ous co n d it ion an d the c o n d itio n w as n o t l o ca ted o n it s p rop erty
. ”). For exampl e, i n W

arri ng t on v. B ird , the N e w Je rse yA p p e llate D i vi s i on appl i ed Stew art t o i m pos e a dut y on a r es t aur antow ner w hos e cus t om er s w ere h itbya s peedi ng carw hi l e cr os s i ng a publ i c r oad atni ghtas t hey r etur ned t o t he r es t aur ant ’ s parki ng l ot
. 499 A

. 2d 1026 , 1030 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. A pp. D i v. 1985) ( “[W ] hen a bus i nes s pr ovi des a par ki ng l ot acr os s t he r oadw ay from i ts est abli shm ent, t he d utyof the propri et or t o ex erci se r eas onabl e ca r e fort he s afe t yof i t s patr ons ext ends t o condi t i ons obt ai ni ng att he parki ng l ot and re qui r es t hat t he pat r ons notbe s ubj ect ed t o an unr eas onabl e r i s k of harm i n t r aver s i ng t he11 e x p e c te d ro u te b e tw e e n th e tw o lo c a tio n s .” ), cer t
. deni ed , 511 A

. 2 d 6 5 3 (N

. J. 1 9 8 6 ). Si m i l ar l y , i n A nt enucc i v. M r . Ni ck’s Mens Spor t

s w ear , t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on appl i ed S tew a rt t o i m pos e a dutyfor s i dew al k m ai nt enanc e on comm er ci al t enant s i n excl us i ve pos s es s i on of the pr emi s es , r easoni ng t hat“the pol i cy cons i der at i ons under l y i ng t he hol di n g i n Stew arthave e qual appl i cabi l i t y. . . to a l es s ee w ho i s i n excl us i ve pos s es s i on of comm er ci al pr emi s es abut t i ng a s i dew al k. ” 514 A

. 2d 75, 76- 77 (N .J . S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 1 9 8 6 ); see al so Jack son v. K-M

art C or p. , 442 A

. 2d 1087, 1090- 91 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. L aw D i v. 1981) (t enan thad sam e si dew al k du t y as o w ner, other w i se “[b]usi ness t enant s , know i ng t hatt hei rcus t om er s w er e tr avel i ng a def i ned r out e t o r eac h t hei r pr emi s es , coul d i gnor e the uns afe condi t i on of t hat r out e w i t h i m puni t y ”)

. T he A nt enucc i cour tw as car eful to li m it it s h o lding to tena n ts i n ex clus ive p o sses sion , h o w ev er, and expr es s l ydecl i ned t o opi ne w hethert he same rul e appl i ed to m u lti- te n a n t f

a c iliti e s . Id

. at77- 78. A l t hough t he N ew J er s ey Supr eme C our thas not a d d r e s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n l e f to p e n b y A nt enucc i , s ubs equentcas es fr om l ow ercour t s have r efus ed t o i m pos e a dutyon t enant s for com m on areas of a m ult i -t enan tfaci l i t y . W e no w turn t o those cases. B. I n B a rr o w s v . T

ru ste e s o f P rin c e to n U

n ive rs ity , t he N ew J e rs e ytr ia l c o u rt re f

u s e d to a p p ly Stew artand A nt enucc i to comm er ci al t enant s i n a “mul t i

- t enants hoppi ng compl ex. ” 58112 A

. 2d 913, 914 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. L aw D i v. 1990)

. A ft erarr i vi ng at a sh o p p ing co m p lex , B a rrow s v isi ted th ree stores b ef o re fa ll ing o n a pa tch o f ice o n the s idew alk in fro n t of a f o u rth store cal l ed L av ake’ s . B arr ow s s ued al l fourof the s t or es he had vi s i t ed, as w el l as t he ow ner of t he compl ex. T he B arrow s co u rt r e v i e w e d t h e e x p a n s i v e ru l e s e s t a b l i s h e d b y Stew artand A nt enucc i but hel d t hat t he dut i es t hey i m pos ed “do notext end t o t enant s i n m ul t i

- t enants hoppi ng com pl exes ” bec aus e s uch t enant s “w i l l not , abs enta contr actual obl i gat i on, have c ont r ol orm ai nt enanc e r es pons i bi l i t i es forco m m o n w al kw ay s or s i dew al ks

. ” Ba r r o ws , 5 8 1 A .2 d a t 9 1 5

. T h e c o u rt d ism iss e d a ll o f th e te n a n t sto re s e x c e p t L a v a k e ’s, w h o se p o ten tial liab ili ty “d[i d] notr es tupon t he hol di ngs of Stew artand A nt enucc i but upon comm on l aw pr i nci pl es of negl i gence , ” i

. e. , L avake ’ s had cont r ol overt he aw ni ng w hi ch cr eat ed the i cypat ch on the s id e w a lk a n d i t c o u ld h a v e f o re s e e n th e d a n g e r. I

d. ( ci t at i ons o m itted). T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey s ubs equent l yappl i ed Ba r r o ws t o a negl i gence act i on a risin g f ro m a f a ll o n a m o v in g w a lk w a ya t an a irp o rt in Kanton ides v. K

LM R oyal D ut ch Ai r l i nes , 802 F. Supp. 1203 ( D

. N

. J

. 1992)

. T he cour t hel d t hatt he ai r l i ne’ s dut yt o pr ovi de i t s p a s s e n g e r s wi t h a r e a s o n a b l y s a f e me a n s o f i n g r e s s and egr es s “di d notand does notencompas s t he comm on ar eas of t he ai rpor tt erm i nal

. ” Id

. at 12 1 5

. E x tens ion o f a d u tyo f c are t o ar eas bey ond t he ai r l i ne’ s contr ol w oul d “vi ol at e pr i nci pl es of for es eea bi l i t yand fa i r nes s , ” i d. a t 1 2 1 6 , w ith “ n o lo g ica l en d to t h[e] dut y , ” i d. at1215.13 T he N ew J er s ey A ppel l at e D i vi s i on al s o has cons i der ed t he i ssue o f m ult i -t enan t faci l i t i es in t w o u np ub l i shed d eci si on s, and has fol l ow ed t he r eas oni ng of Ba r r o ws and Kant oni des

. In a negl i gence act i on bya fe r r ycus t om erw ho s l i pped on i ce i n a parki ng l ot , t he courtr efus ed t o i m pose a dut yof ca r e on the ferr yoper at or , w hi ch l i cens ed i t s t erm i nal fr om t he C ount y , for s now r emoval i n t he adj acent C ount y - ow ned parki ng l ot , even t hough t he fe r r yoper at orhad s om e r es pons i bi l i t yw ith r es pect to th e lo t w h ic h w a s u s e d b y its c u s to m e rs . Si egel v. C ount y of Mo n m o u th , N o . L -5 7 -0 4 , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 6 2 8 1 4 1 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv

. J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 7 ), cer t i f i cat i on deni ed , 93 2 A

. 2d 28 (N

. J. 2007)

. Pursu antt o t he agr eementbetw een the fe r r yoper at or and the C ount y , pas s enger s w er e per m i t t ed t o par k i n t he l otfr ee of cha r ge, w it h t he fe r r yoper at orpr ovi di ng a s hut t l e bus fr om v a ri o u s a re a s o f

th e p a rk in g lo t to th e te rm in a l. I d. at*1. T he pas s enger s di d nothave e xcl us i ve r i ght s t o t he l ot , how ever , as i twas al s o us ed by“[b] eac hgoer s , fi s her m en, s i ght s eer s , and any ot herm ember of t h e p u b li c w i s hi ng t o us e the l ot
. ” I d. at*1. T he agr eemental s o pr ovi ded thatt he C ount yw oul d be resp o n s ib le fo r sno w rem o v al fro m the lo t, w h il e the fe rry o p e ra to r w o u ld b e re sp o n sib le f o r ro u tin e m a in ten a n c e a n d d a ily c le a n in g . Id

. at*2. T he S ieg e l cour tconcl uded thatt he agr eem ent di d not cons t i tut e a l eas e of the parki ng fac i l i t y , and fur t herhel d t hatt he ferr yoper at or“l acke d t he nec es s arycontr ol overt he parki ng l ot t o gi ve ri se to a dutyof ca r e t o pl ai nt i ff. ” Id

. at*5. A m ong o th e r rea so n s, th e A p p e llate D iv isio n d e c lin e d to im p o se a d u ty fors now r emoval on t he fe r ryoper at orbeca use it w as not contr actual l yr equi r ed orauthor i zed t o r emove snow fr om t he parki ng l ot
. R ather , t he C ount yr et ai ned r es pons i bi l i t yfors now14 rem o v al an d w as ex erc isi n g that d u ty
. F inally , the c o u rt di s t i ngui s hed Si egel

f r o m Jack s on v. K

- M

ar tC or p. , not i ng t hat ( 1 ) t h e f e r r y o p e r a t o r w a s a l i c e n s e e , n o t a l e s s e e o f t h e C o u n t y, and (2) t he fer r y oper at orw as noti n excl us i ve pos s es s i on of the parki ng l ot , s o t her e w as no “def i ned r out e” t he ferr y o p era tor knew i t s patr ons w oul d cr os s , unl i ke t he t enanti n Jack s on . I d. at*5. L i ke Si egel , i n Mc Can n v . Bo r o u g h o f Was h i ngt on , t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on r efus ed t o i m pos e a dutyof ca r e on W ei ght W at cher s , w hi ch r ent ed a r oom i ns i de a muni ci pal bui l di ng for w eeklym eet i ng s. N o. L -294-04 , 20 06 W L 27 2 68 18 (N

. J. Super

. C t
. A pp. D i v. Sept

. 26, 2006)

. A par t i ci pantata W ei ght W at cher s m eet i ng s l i pped on i ce on the fr onts t eps of the B or ough bui l di ng and s ued W ei ght W at cher s and the B or ough fornegl i gence . I n r efu sing t o i m pos e a dutyon W ei ght W a tch e rs, th e c o u rt n o ted th a t th e e x ten sio n o f lia b il it yto comm er ci al t enant s i n A nt enucc i h a d b e e n lim ited to ten a n ts in excl us i ve pos s es s i on of the pr emi s es . T he courtdi s count ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s r el i ance on War r i n g t on o n the gr ound t hatt he r es t aur antw as t he s ol e occ upantof the bui l di ng and the parki ng l otw her eas W ei ghtW at cher s w as o n e of m anyt enant s of the B o ro u g h b u ild in g . I

d. at*1- 2. T he A p p ell at e D i vi s i on acknow l edged t hat t he N ew J er s ey Supr eme Courthad pr evi ous l y“es chew ed ‘ contr ol ’ ” o v ert he pr emi s es as t he d e ter m in a tiv e f

a c to r in im p o si n g a d u tya n d in ste a d lo o k e d to b a s ic f a ir n e s s u n d e r a ll th e c ir c u m s t a n c e s . I d. at*2. T he McC ann c o u rt re a so n e d : “it w o u ld n o t co m p o rt w ith b a sic pr i nci pl es of fa i r nes s t o i m pos e a duty o n t he w eekl yr ent erof a sin g le m e e tin g ro o m , in a b u ild in g o c c u p ied o n a re g u lar b a sis byot her s . ” I

d.See Ber r y v. H ouchens M

kt

. of Tenn. , I nc. , 253 S. W

. 3d 4 141, 146 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2008) ( s hoppi ng cent ert enanthad no dut yt o patr on w ho s l i pped i n oi l i n par ki ng l ot w her e parki ng l ot se rv e d m u ltip le te n a n ts a n d lan d lo rd w a s re sp o n sib le f o r its m a in ten a n c e ); Marrone v . S

. Sh ore P rops. , 816 N

. Y

. S. 2d 530, 5 3 2 (N .Y . A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 6 ) (le ss e e h a d n o d u ty to m a in tain strip m all side w alk it neither o w n ed n o r po sses sed ex clus iv e ly ); D ur m v. Hec k’s , I

nc. , 401 S. E

. 2d 908, 911 ( W

. V a. 1991) ( “[W ] her e a l eas e agr eementcl ear l ys et s for t h t hatt he l es s orhas t he dutyt o m ai nt ai n t he non- l eas ed comm on ar eas , t h ere by r et ai ni ng t he l es s or ’ s contr ol overs uch ar eas , t he l es s ee of a s t or e l ocat ed i n a s hoppi ng cent eri s n o tl i abl e w hen a pa t r on s us t ai ns i n

juri es as a r es ul tof an a cci dentw hi ch occ ur s on t he n o n -l eased co m m o n a re a .”); Johns on v. Tom Thum b St or es , I nc. , 771 S

. W

. 2 d 582 ( T ex. C t
. A pp. 1989) ( s hoppi ng cent ert enant notl i abl e t o cus t om erw ho fel l i n comm on ar ea o f shoppi ng ce n t ert en fe etfr om entr ance t o t enant ’ s s t or e w her e l and lord w as re sp o n sible fo r an d h a d c o n tr o l ov er c o m m o n are as); D opi co- Fer nandez v. G r and U ni on Super m arket , 841 F. 2d 11, 14- 15 ( 1s tC i r . 1988) ( under Puer t o R i co l aw , t enants erved by comm on ar eas i n m i ni

- m al l notr es pons i bl e form ai nt ai ni ng tho se a rea s) cer t
. deni ed , 4 8 8 U .S

. 8 6 4 (1 9 8 8 ); R as pi l ai rv. B r uno’s Food St or es , I nc. , 514 So. 2d 1 0 2 2 , 1024 ( A l a. 1987) ( s h o p p i n g c e n t e rt e n a n t s Wa l

- M a r ta n d Bru n o ’ s d i d n o to we 15 T h e a p p r o a c h t a k e n b y Ba r r o ws and Kant oni des is in ac c o r d wi t h t h e ru l e a d o p t e d b y t h e g r e a t ma j o r i t y of ot her ju risd ictio n s to h a v e c o n sid e re d th e q u e stio n w h ich h o ld th a t a les se e in a m u lti -te n a n t sh o p p in g c e n ter d o e s n o t h a v e a d u tyto m ai nt ai n comm on ar eas contr ol l ed by t he l andl or d. See Fr ank 4dut yt o cus t om erw ho fel l on pl as t ic b ag i n par ki ng l otw her e, undert he l eas e, s hoppi ng cent erow nerw as r es pon si bl e for c le a n in g a n d m a in ten a n c e o f p a rk in g lo t); H

al lv . Q ui v i ra Squar e D ev. C o. , I

nc. , 675 P. 2d 931, 932- 33 ( K an. A pp. 1984) ( t enanthad no dutyt o w arn cus t om erw ho fel l i n m ul t i

- t enantl ot becau se sh o p p in g c e n ter o w n e r so lelyre sp o n sib le f o r m a k in g a ll r epai r s and condu cti n g m ainten an ce fo r co m m o n are as incl udi ng s id e w a lk s a n d p a rk in g sp a c e s); Torr es v. P iggl y W iggl y Shop R i t e Fo o ds, I

nc. , 600 P. 2d 1198, 1200 ( N

. M

. A pp. 1979) (s ho pp i ng center t enan t no t l i able fo r cust om er’ s fa l l on grease i n par ki ng l ot w her e, t hough l eas e s i l ent as t o r es pons i bi l i t yfor m ai nt enanc e, parki ng l otw as forcomm on us e of a l l t enant s and te n a n t d id n o t e x e rc is e c o n tr o l o v e r p a rk in g lo t) , cer t
. deni ed , 6 0 4 P .2 d 8 2 1 (N .M . 1 9 7 9 ); Lear y v. Law r ence Sal es C or p. , 275 A

. 2d 32, 34 ( Pa. 1971) ( “I n Pen n sy lvani a, i thas l ong been es t abl i s hed as a pr i nci pl e of l andl or d- t enantl aw t hatw her e the ow nerof r ea l es ta t e l eas es var i ous par t s t her eof t o s ever al t enant s , butr et ai ns pos s es s i on and co nt r ol of the comm on passage w a y s and ais l es w hich ar e t o b e used b ybu si ness i nvi t ees of the var i ous t enant s , t he obl i gat i on o f k eepi ng t he comm on ai s l es s afe fort he bus i nes s i nvi t ees is imposed upon the lan dl or d and not upon t he t enant s , i n t he abs ence of a c o n tra ryp r o v is io n in th e lea se o r le a se s.” ); U nder hi l lv. Shactm an , 151 N

. E

. 2d 287, 290 ( M as s . 1958) ( s hoppi ng cent er t enantnotl i abl e t o cus t om er w ho fel l i n par ki ng l ot l andl or d w as o b lig e d to m a in tain n o tw ith sta n d in g f a c t th a t te n a n t co u ld p ro v id e p a rk in g a tte n d a n ts ). B uts ee, e. g. , L e v y v . H o m e D e p o t, I nc. , 518 So. 2d 941 ( Fl a. D i s t
. C t
. A pp. 1987) ( H om e D epotnot abs ol ved fr om l i abi l i t y for gap i n el evat ed s i dew al k i n comm on 16parki ng lot of s hoppi ng m al l s i m pl ybeca us e mal l ow ner c o n tr ac tuallyresp o n sible fo r co m m o n are a m ainten an ce ); W i l s on v. A l lday , 487 So. 2d 793, 798 ( M i s s . 1986) ( l es s ee ha d du t yof ca re w i t h respectt o shop ping cen t er par king l ot i f i t s use c o n stitu ted p o ss e ss io n a n d c o n tro l); H o p k in s v . F.W

. W o o lw o rth C o. , 4 1 9 N .E .2 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 4 (M a ss . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) (le ss e e in s ho p p i n g ma l l h a d d u t yt o p a t r o n who f e l l o n c o mmon a r ea s i dew al k nearl es s ee’ s s t or e, “[e ] ven i f a f i ndi ng w er e w arr ant ed t hat W ool w or t h had no contr ol overt he s i dew al k on w hi ch the p lai n ti ff fe ll , itw o u ld n o t b e re li ev ed fro m it s d u tyto w arn inv it ee s o f d an g er” o f w h ich it w as a w are ). W e re jec t L o w e ’s a rg u m e n t th a t itsh o u ld n o t b e h e ld 5 l i abl e bec aus e the Lease o bl i ged the l andl or d t o r emove snow a n d th e c o n tr a c ti n g p a rties a re in th e b e st p o sitio n to a llo c a te s uch r i s ks

. T he al l ocat i on of r i s k m ade byt he l eas e maydefi ne i ndemni t yr i ght s betw een L ow e’ s and t he l andl or d, buti tcannot 17 D . W a g n e r, A n n o ta tio n , Li abi l i t y of Lesse e of

P ar t i cular P r em is es i n Shoppi ng C ent erf orI n jury t o P atr on f

r om C o n d it io n o n P o rtio n o f P re m ise s N

o t In c lu d e d

in His L e a se h o ld , 4 8 A

. L

. R

. 3 d 1 1 6 3 (20 0 9 ). C. I n l i g h to f

t h e c a s e s we h a v e d i s c u s s e d , Hol me s a r gues th a t L o w e ’s is m o re sim ilar to a sta n d -a lo n e f a c ili tyw ith respons i bi l i t yfori t s par ki ng l otl i ke the K

- M ar ti n J a c k s on , w hi l e Low e’ s ur ges us t o appl yt he rul e form ul t i

- t enant s hoppi ng com p lexes. H ol m es r el i es heavi l yon t he fol l ow i ng 5co n clus ivelyd eterm ine L o w e’s co m m o n law tortd u ti es to thir d p a rt yin v ite e s . See Ja ckson v. K-M art C or p. , 442 A

. 2d at1091 (“ T h e e f f e c t o f th e c o v e n a n t to m a in tain is o n lyto a llo c a te c o sts betw een the t enantand the pr oper t yow ner . . . . [T]he covena nt abs ol ves nei t her land l or d nort enantfr om l i abi l i t yt o i nnocent thir d p arti es.”); O ’ C onnel lv. N ew Jer s ey Spor t s and E xpos i t i on A uth. , 766 A

. 2d 786 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. A pp. D i v. 2001) ( t enantnot abs ol ved of l i abi l i t yw her e le as e pl ace d m ai nt enanc e r es pons i bi l i tyo n l a n d l o r d beca us e t enantexer ci s ed s om e contr ol o v er interior o f stad ium w h ere p lai n ti ff fe ll ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). O f c o u rse, th e c o n v erse o f th is pro p o sit ion is true as w ell

. If N e w Je rse yw e r e to a d o p t th e d iss e n t’s ru le o f law , ten a n ts w oul d b e joi nt l yand s ever al l yl i abl e and w oul d have no c o m m o n la w ri g h t o f

c o m p le te in d e m n if

ic a tio n . See N ew J er s ey Jo int T o rt fe aso rs C o n tr ibu ti o n L aw , N

. J. S tat
. A n n . § 2 A :53 A -3 (p ro v id in g th a t a jo in t to rtf e a so r w h o “ p a y s [ a ] ju d g m e n t in w hol e ori n par t , . . . s hal l be ent i t l ed t o r ecove rcontr i but i on f ro m th e o th e r j o in t to rtf

e a so r . . . fo r th e e x c e ss so p a id o v e r h is p ro ra ta s h a re ” ).

18 l a n g u a g e f

r o m W ar r i ngt on for t he propos i t i on t hati m pos i t i on of a dut y i s det erm i ned by t he r eas onabl e expec t at i on of an i nvi t ee: [T]he cr i t i cal el ement s houl d not be the ques t i on of the pr opr i et or ’ s control overt he ar ea t o be t r aver s ed butr athert he expe ctat i on of the i nvi t ee t h at s afe pas s age w i l l be af for ded fr om t he parki ng fac i l i t yt o t he es t abl i s hm entt o w hi ch they a re in v ite d

. C o m m e rc ial e n tre p re n e u rs k n o w in19 p rov iding the pa rkin g fa cil itythat their cu stom ers w i l l t ravel a defini t e rout e t o reach thei r pr em i ses. T he bene f

i tt i n g pr opr i et ors houl d notbe perm i t t ed t o caus e orign or e an uns afe condi t i on i n t hat r out e w hi ch i t m i ghtr eas onabl yr emedy , w hether t he p at h leads al on g a si dew al k o r acr oss a r o a d w a y. W ar r i ngt on , 4 9 9 A. 2 d a t1 0 2 9

- 3 0 ( e mph a s i s a d d e d )

. Und er H o lm e s ’s a p p ro a c h , B arrow s and Kant oni des d o n o t app lyh ere b e c a u s e L o w e ’ s d i d n o tl o o k o ra c tl i k e a m u l t i

- t e n a n tf a c i l i t y; i twa s l o c a t e d i n a s t a n d

- a l o n e b u i l d i n g , wi t h e s s e n t i a l l yi t s o wn parki ng area desi gn at ed by L ow e’s cart corr al s an d sig ns. T her efor e, a “r eas onabl e i nvi t ee” w oul d expec t L ow e’ s t o have a d u tyto m a in tain th e p a rk in g a re a w h e re H o lm e s f e ll. A s a pr el i m i narym at t er , w e not e t hat i ti s uncl eart hatt he e x p e c ta ti o n o f

a n in v itee is re lev a n t in th e c o n tex t o f a m u lti

t enan tfaci l i t y , as W

ar r i ngt on i nvol ved a pr opr i et ori n excl us i ve p o sses sion , an d n eit h er B arrow s n o r Kant oni des cons i der ed in v ite e e x p e c ta tio n a s p a rt o f th e irm u lti- te n a n t a n a lyse s . See Kan t o ni des , 802 F. Supp. at1214 ( r efus i ng t o appl yr eas oni ng of A nt enucc i

/ W ar r i ngt on b e c a u se “ [ t]h is lin e o f c a se s . . . d e a ls o n lyw ith tena n ts i n ex clus ive c o n tr o l of the p rem ises”). R egar dl es s , even w hen i nvi t ee e xpect at i on i s cons i der ed, H ol m es ’ s ar gum entfai l s beca us e the Shoppi ng C ent erparki ng l ot l ooked l i ke a m ul t i

- t enant fac i l i t y . T he s i gns att he entr ance t o t he l oti dent i fym ul t i pl e t enant s , n otj us tL ow e’ s . W hi l e a L o w e ’s c u sto m e r w ill u n d o u b ted lyp a rk a s c lo se a s p o ss ib le to th a t s to r e , h e c o u ld p a rk a n yw h e re in th e lo t. U n lik e in W a rri ngt on and Jack

s on

— and contr aryt o t he di s s ent ’sT h e r ecor d demonst r at es t hats om e of the parki ng 6 s pace s i n fr ontof B al l y ’ s ar e cl os er t o L ow e’ s t han m anyof the parki ng s pace s i n fr ont of L ow e’ s . T hi s i s es peci al l yt rue i f one patr oni zes L ow e’ s l um bercent er . T hi s fac thi ghl i ght s t he u n c e rta in tyin h e re n t in th e ru le o f law p ro p o se d b yth e d iss e n t, w hi ch w oul d vary fr om s t or e t o s t or e and f r om s hoppi ng cent er t o s hopping ce n t erdependi ng on t he t enantm i x and the c o n f ig u ra tio n o f

th e p a rk in g lo t.

20 char act er i zat i on— t her e i s notone “def i ned r out e” fr om t he l ot t o t he s t or e. T her efor e, w hi l e a r eas onabl e i nvi t ee t o t he

6 Shoppi ng C ent erw oul d expec ts afe pas s age fr om t he par ki ng l ot to a n y o f th e s to re s b e n e f itt in g f ro m th e lo t, th e in v itee w o u ld notr eas onabl yexpec tone t enantt o be r es pon sible for m a in ta in i n g t h e e n tir e lo t. See Put erm an v. C i t y of Long B r anch , 859 A

. 2d 1246 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. L aw D i v. 2004) ( r efus i ng t o i m pos e dutyon ow nerof s t r i p m all fo ri cy condi t i ons i n an adj ace ntm uni ci pal l oteven thoug h ow ner adver t i s ed thatpatr ons coul d par k i n t he l otw her e ther e w ere n u m ero u s rou tes an inv it ee co u ld take fro m the lot to the m all ). W hi l e our di s s ent i ng col l eague corr ect l y not es t hatL ow e’ s and t he othert enant s ar e l ocat ed i n s t and- al one bui l di ngs i ns t ead of interco n n ec ted s tores, th is fac t do es n o t neg ate the sh are d n ature o f th e p a rk in g lo t. A l t hough Ba r r o ws , Si egel , McC ann , and Kant oni des are notdeci s i ons of the N ew J er s eySupr eme C o ur t , and ar e not bi ndi ng on our i nt erpr et at i on of N ew J er s eyl aw , w e fi nd t hem per s uas i ve bec aus e theyar e cons onantw i t h t he publ i c pol i cy cons i der at i ons under l y ing Stew artand t he b asi c fai rness21 pr i nci pl e of Mo n a c o . It is true b oth that Lo w e’s deri ves a b e n e f it fro m th e p a rk in g lo t an d th a t th e im p o sitio n o f a d u ty w oul d i ncent i vi ze Low e’ s t o pr event danger ous condi t i ons . B ut cou nterv a ili n g p o licyc o n sid e ra tio n s w e ig h m o re h e a vil yagainst i m pos it i on of a duty . T o obl i ge t enant s t o m ai nt ai n comm on areas w ou l d r esul t i n s ub st anti al l y i ncreased cost s w i t h lit tle added be nefi t
. L andl or ds al r eadyhave gr eati n ce n ti ve t o keep t he parki ng ar eas of thei rs hoppi ng cent er s fr ee of s now , i ce, and o ther h az ard s. A w ell -m aintaine d p ark ing lot i n d u ce s sh o p p ers to p a tr o n ize th e c e n ter a n d m o tiv a tes ten a n ts to p a yth e ir comm on ar ea mai nt enanc e fe es . G iven t he l andl or d’ s s now r emoval pr ogr am her e, t he r i s k of noti m pos i ng a dutyon L ow e’ s i s m i ni m al

. M or eover , t he i m pos i t i on of a dut yon t he ten a n ts w o u ld re su lt in d u p lica tiv e e f f o rt a n d in ter f

e re n c e w ith t he l andl or d’ s m aintenanc e pr ogr am. I ti s nothar d t o i m agi ne t he con f u s i o n , a n d p e r h a p s d a n g e r , t h a tc o u l d e n s u e i f s now p low s an d salt tru ck s h ir ed b y the l an d lord , L o w e’s , B a lly ’s T ot al Fi t nes s , and M at t r es s G i ant al l at t empt ed t o m ai nt ai n t he parki ng l otatt he s ame t i m e. T he thoughtof the s ame occurr i ng i n a shoppi ng cent er w i t h t w entyorm or e t enant s hi ghl i ght s t he a b s u r d i t y o f

s u c h a s h a r e d d u t y. Im p o sitio n o f

a d u tyo n ten a n ts in a m u lti -te n a n t f a c ili ty al s o w oul d l ead t o uncert ai nty w it h res pectt o t he ar eas of the p a rk in g lo t f

o r w h ic h e a c h te n a n t is re s p o n s ib le

. See Kant oni des , 8 0 2 F

. S u p p . a t1 2 1 5 ( “ I f KL M we r e f

o u n d t o o we p a ss e n g e rs a d u ty o f c a re w ith re g a rd to d ista n t p re m ise s th a t it d oes notow n, l eas e, contr ol orm ai nt ai n, t her e w oul d be no l ogi cal end t o t hatdut y . ”)

. T hi s uncert ai nt yw oul d encour age “s hot gun” l i t i gat i on o f the t ype s een i n Ba r r o ws , w her e theH o lm e s a lso a rg u e s th a t L o w e ’s o w e d h im a d u ty 7 b e c a u se it e x e rc ise d so m e c o n tro l o v e r th e p a rk in g lo t, pr im a rily w i t h respectt o th e p l acem ent and m ai ntenance o f cartcorr al s. T hi s ar gum ent i s fac tual l y i naptbeca us e H ol m es w as noti nj ur ed in a c a rt c o rra l o r b ya sh o p p in g c a rt. W e a lso re

jec t H o lm e s’s a rg u m e n t th a t L o w e ’s s h o u ld 8 b e e sto p p e d f

ro m d e n y in g liab ili tyb e c a u s e it m isle d h im in to bel i evi ng t hati tw as t he r es pons i bl e par t y . H ol m es ’ s evi dence i s i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h es t oppel beca us e he has notpr es ent ed anyaff i rma t i v e s t a t e me n t s b y Lo we’ s t h a t i t was t h e o wne r of th e p a rk in g lo t. M o re o v e r, b e c a u se e sto p p e l is a n e q u itab le 22 cus t om ers ued eve r y s t or e at w hi ch he had br ow s ed orpur chas ed a n item p rio r to h is f

a ll. Fi nal l y , one of the dr i vi ng fa ct or s behi nd Stew art ’s abandonmentof the “no l i abi l i t y ” rul e i s noti m pl i cat ed i n t he m ul t i

- t enants i tuat i on. T he Stew artcour texpr es s ed conce r n for in ju re d c u sto m e rs w h o w o u ld b e lef t w ith o u t a r e m e d yif lan d o w n e rs w e re n o t h e ld re sp o n sib le f o r a b u tti n g p u b lic s i d ew alks

. H ere , itis un d ispu ted th at th e lan d lord

— w h o o w n ed, contr ol l ed, and w as r es pons i bl e for m ai nt enanc e of t he parki ng lo t— h a d a d u ty t o H o lm e s. T h a t H o lm e s f a iled to f

ile s u it a g a in st th e lan d lo rd w ith in th e lim itatio n s p e rio d lea v e s h im w ith o u t a r e m e d y in th is c a se , b u t co u n se l’s e rro r h e re sh o u ld n o t re su lt i n th e im p o s it io n o f a n u n f a ir a n d u n w o rk a b le d u ty upon t he t enant
. T he bur den of i dent i fy i ng t h e o w nerof a 7 m ul t i

- t e n a n t p r o p e r t y i s n o t a n o n e r o u s o n e a n d can be determ i ned si m plybyexam i ning pu bli c records. 8d o c trin e , the p a rtyre q u e stin g su c h a re m e d ym u st d e m o n stra te
“ g o o d f a ith

. . . and r eas onabl e di l igen ce . ” G l uck v

. Rynda D ev. C o. , 1 3 4 A

. 3 6 3 , 3 6 7 -68 (N

. J. 1 9 2 6 ) (em p h a s is ad d ed ). N e ith e r H o lm e s n o r his c o u n se l (w h o m H o lm e s re tain e d sh o rtly aft er t he acci dent ) under t ook t o det erm i ne ow ner s hi p of t he l ot in a tim elym an n er. 23 III

. For the fore goi ng r eas ons , w e pr edi ctt hatN ew J er s ey w oul d noti m pos e a dutyon an i n d ividual t enantfors now r emoval fr om t he comm on ar eas of a mul t i

- t enantparki ng l ot w h e n t h e l a n d l o r d h a s r e t a i n e d a n d e x e r c i s e d t h a tr e s p o n s i b i l i t y. T h e re f o re , w e w ill a f

f irm L o w e ’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t.F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge , di s s ent i ng. T h e N ew Jerse y co u rt s h av e p lace d a b roa d d u tyo f c are o n p ro p rie to rs to e n s u r e th e sa f e in g re ss a n d e g re ss o f th e ir p atron s. B ec au se I b eli ev e tha t th e N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rt w oul d fin d t hatL ow e’ s ow es H ol m es a dutyof ca r e i n t he c irc u m sta n c e s p re se n ted h e re , I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t. T he l andmar k deci s i on i m pos i ng a broa d dut y of ca r e on st ore propri et ors i s St ew ar t v. 104 W al l ace Str eet

I nc. , 432 A

. 2d 881 ( N

. J

. 1981)

. I n Stew art , the N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rt r ej ect ed a tr adi t i onal “no l i abi l i t y ” rul e and hel d t hat

“ c o m m e rc ial la n d o w n e rs a re re sp o n sib le f o r m a in ta in in g in re a so n a b lyg o o d c o n d iti o n th e [ p u b lic] s id e w a lk s a b u tti n g th e ir p ro p e rtya n d a re liab le to p e d e stria n s in ju re d a s a re su lt o f

th e ir negl i gentfai l ur e t o do s o. ” I d. a t 8 8 7 . I n e x p la in in g its ra tio n a le, th e c o u rt a rticu late d so m e o f N e w Je rse y’s p u b lic p o licyc o n sid e ra tio n s. A c c o rd in g to th e c o u rt, th e liab ili tyru le w o u ld (1 ) “ p ro v id e a r e m e d yto m a n yin n o c e n t p la in tif f s ,” ( 2) “gi ve ow ner s of abut t i ng comm er ci al pr oper t yan i ncent i ve to k e e p th e irs id e w a lk s in p ro p e r re p a ir ,” a n d (3 ) “ e lim in a te
. . . arbi t r ar i nes s . ” I

d. T he courtal s o not ed thatow ner s ar e i n t he b e st p o sitio n to in sp e c t an d d isc o v e r sid e w a lk d e f e c ts : “L o g ic a n d c o m m o n s e n s e a l s o s u p p o r t t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f t h i s d u t y, i nas m uch as ow ner s of abut t i ng pr oper t yar e i n an i deal pos i t i on to in s p e c t s id e w a lk s a n d to ta k e p ro m p t a c tio n to c u re d e f e c ts .” I d. a t 8 8 8

. See al

s o Mi r z a v. F i lm or e C or

p. , 456 A

. 2d 518, 521 ( N

. J

. 1983) ( ext endi ng Stew artto co v er sn o w an d ice rem o v al). T he l ow erN ew J er s eycour t s have a l s o pl ace d a br oad d u ty o f c a re o n s to re p ro p ri e to rs . See , e. g. , N e lso n v . G re a t A tl. & Pac. Tea C o. , 137 A

. 2d 599, 603 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. A pp. D i v.2 1958) ( ext endi ng a pr opr i et or ’ s dut y of car e t o t he s uper m arket p a rk in g lo t); Merkel

v. Saf ew ay St or es , I

nc. , 187 A

. 2d 52, 55 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. L a w D iv

. 1 9 6 2 ) (ex ten d in g a p ro p rie to r’s d u ty of ca r e t o t he publ i c s i dew al k connec t i ng t he par ki ng ar ea t o t he s to re e n tr a n c e ). B uts ee , e.g. , C hi m i ent e v. A dam C or p. , 535 A .2 d 5 2 8 , 5 2 9 -3 0 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 1 9 8 7 ) (d e c lin in g to ext end the dutyof car e t o a pathw aycr eat ed byt he tr es pas s i ng p u b lic o n a g ra ss yslo p e a d jac e n t to a sh o p p in g c e n ter b u t h e ld bya s epar at e ow ner )

. I n par t i cul ar , i n W arri ng t on v. B i rd , 499 A

. 2 d 1 0 2 6 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. A pp. D i v. 1985) , t he N ew J er s ey A p p e ll a te D iv isio n h e ld th a t a p ro p rie to r’s d u tyo f c a re to its p a tro n s e x ten d e d to a ro a d w a yw h e n p a tro n s w e re re q u ire d to cr os s t he r oad w ay to r eac h t he pr opr i et or ’ s par ki ng l ot
. T he cour texpl ai ned, “the cr i t i cal el ement s houl d not be t he ques t i on of the pr opr i et or ’ s control o v er the ar ea t o be tr aver s ed but r athert he exp ec tat ion of t he i nvi t ee thats afe pas s age w i l l be aff or ded fr om t he parki ng fac i l i t y t o t he es t abl i s hm entt o w hi ch t heyar e i nvi t ed. ” I

d. at1029- 30. A g ains t th is ba ck d rop o f p rop ri etor li ab il ity , w e a re pr es ent ed w i t h a di s cr et e sub- i s s ue: w e m us tdet erm i ne w hether t he L ow e’s st ore’ s st atus as a t enan t affects any du t y o f c a re it m i ghtot herw i s e have ow ed t o i t s cus t om ers. Si nce the N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rt h as no t y et ruled o n this q u esti o n , w e a re o b lig e d to p re d ic t h o w it w o u ld re s o lv e th e is s u e . See H untv. U

. S. Tobacco C o. , 538 F. 3d 217, 220 ( 3d C ir

. 2008)

. A s t he m a j o r i t ys t a t e s , “ [ i ] n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n a u th o r i t a t i ve pr onouncement by a s t at e’ s hi ghes tcour t , w e maygi ve s er i ous c o n s id e ra tio n to th e o p in io n o f a n in te rm e d ia te a p p e lla te c o u rt .” A e tn a C a s. & S u r. C o . v. Fa rr e ll , 8 5 5 F

. 2 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ). F o rtu n ately , sev era l N ew Jerse y su p erior co u rtca ses a re3 illu s tr a tiv e . A N e w J e rs e ytr ia l c o u rt , Jack s on v. K

- M

ar tC or p. , 4 4 2 A .2 d 1 0 8 7 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. L a w D iv

. 1 9 8 1 ), a n d a p p e llate c o u rt , An t e n u c c i v . M

r . Ni c k ’s Me n s S

p o r t s we ar , 514 A

. 2d 75 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. A pp. D i v. 1986) , have e xt ended the Stew a rt l i abi l i t yrul e t o covercom m erc ia l t enant s . H ow ever , another N e w J e r s e ytr ia l c o u rt , B ar r ow s v. Trus t ees of P r i nceton U n ive rs ity , 581 A

. 2d 913 ( N

. J

. Super

. C t
. L aw D i v. 1990) , and a f e d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt a p p lyin g N e w J e rs e yla w , Kant oni des v. K LM R oyal D ut ch Ai r l i nes , 8 0 2 F

. S u p p . 1 2 0 3 (D .N .J . 1 9 9 2 ), h a v e sin c e c a rv e d o u t an e x c e p tio n to th e liab ili tyru le f o r m u lti

t enan tfaci l i t i es. I n J a c ks on , the p lain tiff

slip p e d a n d f

e ll o n a sid e w a lk connec t i ng a K

- m ar ts t or e, of w hi ch s he w as a pat ron , to a parki ng l ot
. 442 A

. 2d at 1088. K

- m ar t , a l es s ee, fi l ed a mot i on f o rs u mma r yj u d g me n to n t h e g r o u n d s t h a ti td i d n o to wn t he s id e w a lk a n d h e ld n o re s p o n s ib ility f o r its m a in te n a n c e . I

d. T he N ew Jerse yL aw D ivisi o n d isag ree d , h o lding that K -m art’s lia b ility w a s c o n c u rr e n t w ith th a t o f th e p ro p e rt yo w n e r. I d. at 1091. L ooki ng t o Stew artforgui dance , t he courtm ade thr ee “conc l us i ons of l aw and pol i cy ”: “( 1) T he oper at orof a c om m er ci al es t abl i s hm ent m us tprovi de r eas onabl ys afe pr emi s es for bu si ness i nv i t ees. ( 2) N o di s t i nct i on s houl d b e m ade be t w een the o p e ra to r-o w n e r a n d th e o p e ra to r-te n a n t, sin c e in ei t her case i ti s th e op erat or w ho i s i n the best pos i t i on t o di s coveranydanger ous condi t i on.4 ( 3) T he dutyt o pr ovi de r eas onabl ys afe pr emi s es i nc lu d es a dutyt o p rovi de a safe p at h o f egress f ro m th e p re m is e s .” I d. a t 1 0 9 0

. T h e c o u rt e x p lain e d th a t to h o ld o th e rw ise “ w o u ld d isco u rag e c o m m erc ial o p era tors fro m u n d ertak ing n ec essa ry corr ect i ve m easures even t ho ug h a tr an sie nt hazard, such as a s now and i ce acc um ul at i on, w oul d oft en be e as i l ydi s cover ed by an oper at or . ” I

d. T h e N e w Je rse yA p p e llate D iv isio n f o llo w e d su it i n A nt enucc i

. A s i n Jack

s on , t he pl ai nt i ff i n A nt enucc i fel l on a s i dew al k i n fr ontof a pr opr i et or - t enant , a s por t i ng goods s t or e. 5 1 4 A .2 d a t 7 5 -7 6

. F in d in g th a t Stew art“di d notm ake a di s t inct i on betw een the ow nerand a t enanti n excl us i ve pos s es s i on of the comm er ci al pr emi s es ” and thatt he Stew art p u b li c p o li cyco n side rati o n s ap p li ed in b o th instan ce s, the c o u rt hel d, “w e fi nd s uffi ci entdi r ect i on i n Stew artt o i m pos e upon a les se e in e x c lu siv e p o ss e ss io n o f p re m ise s a b u tti n g a p u b lic s i dew al k[] a dutyt o keep the w al kw ayi n good r epai rfort he benef i t of pedes t r i ans . ” I

d. at 77. T he cour t emphasi zed thatt he rul e “ap p li es onl yt o a comm er ci al t enantw ho i s i n excl us i ve pos s es s i on of the pr emi s es abut t i ng t he s i dew al k. ” I d. F o u r y e a r s late r, th e N e w Je rse yL a w D iv isio n in Bar r o ws carved o ut a l og i cal excep t i on t o the t enan tl i abil i ty rule

. U nl i ke Jack

s on and A nt enucc i , w her e the pl ai nt i ffs eac h fel l i n fr ont of a s i ngl e st or e, t he pl ai nt i ff i n Ba r r o ws s l i pped and fel l on a pat ch of i ce on a m al l s i dew al k. 581 A

. 2d at914. A l t hough t he pl ai nt i ff w as i n fr ont of a par t i cul ar s t or e w hen he fel l , he had s hopped i n s ever al of the mal l’ s stores duri ng t he5 c o u rs e o f h is tr ip

. I

d. U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he Ba r r o ws c o u r tc i t ed A nt enucc i w ith a p p ro v a l b u t d e c lin e d to a p p lyits h o ld in g in th e m a ll co n tex t:

“ B e c a u se ten a n ts in a m u lti -te n a n t sh o p p in g m a ll w i l l not , abs enta contr actual obl i gat i on, have con t r ol orm ai nt enanc e r es pons i bi l i t i es for co m m o n w alkw ay s o r s id ew alks , this co u rt c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e d u t i e s i m p o s e d b y Stew artand A nt enucc i do notext end t o t enant s i n m ul t i

- t enant s h o p p in g c o m p le x e s .” I d. at91 5. A ccordi ng l y , th e c ou rtgrant ed the defen dan t s’ m o tio n s f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I d. T h e o n lyo th e r c o u rt to a p p lya m u lti -te n a n t ex c e p tio n in a publ i s hed opi ni on i s t he fede r al di s t r i ctcour ti n Kant oni des , a cas e i nvol vi ng a veryuni que s etof fa ct s . I n Kant oni des , t he p lain tiff s f iled su it ag a in st a n a irline c o m p a n y , w h ich w a s to pr ovide the m w i t h r ound- t r i p ai rt r ans por t at i on, aft ert he pl ai nt i ffs fel l on a movi ng w al kw ayw hi l e pr oceed ing t o a connec t i ng fl i ght

. 802 F. Supp. at 1205. T he movi ng w al kw ay w as i n t he com m on ar ea of a t erm i nal bui l di ng t hatw as ow ned, m ai nt ai ned, and contr ol l ed by t he ai rpor t , not t he s peci fi c ai r l i ne c o m p a n y . I

d. at1206. C i t i ng bot h A nt enucc i and Ba r r o ws w ith app roval , t he d i stric t co urtheld that “[the air l i ne] i s a comm er cial tena ntand does not‘ excl us i vel ypos s es s ’ t he c o m m o n a re a o f

[ th e a irp o r t] w h e re th e m o v in g w a lk w a yis lo c a ted ” a n d g ra n ted th e a irline ’s m o ti on for sum m ary j ud gm e n t. I d. at1214- 16. T he courtexpl ai ned thatt he oppos i t e conc l us i on wo u l d b e “ i mp r a c t i c a l ” : “ I f [ t h e a i r l i n e ] wer e f

o u n d t o o we6 p a ss e n g e rs a d u ty o f c a re w ith re g a rd to d ista n t p re m ise s th a t it does notow n, l eas e, contr ol orm ai n t ai n, t her e w oul d be no l ogi cal end t o t hatdut y . ” I d. at1215. E x a mi n i n g t h e s e o p i n i o n s a g a i n s tt h e b a c k d r o p o f New J e r s e yc a s e l a w , I wo u l d h o l d t h a tt h e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me C our tw oul d fi nd L ow e’ s l i abl e and not appl yt he mul t i

- t enant exce pt i on ar t i cul at ed i n Ba r r o ws and ap pl i ed i n Kant oni des

. A l t hough L ow e’ s m ay t echni cal l y be a par t of a m u lt i- t enant c o m p lex , the M a p le S h a d e S h o p p in g C e n ter d o e s n o t re se m b le t he Ba r r o ws o r Kant oni des fac i l i t i es : L ow e’ s w as i n “exc l us i ve pos s es s i on” of i t s bui l di ng – al bei t i n a l ar ger , s har ed s hoppi ng ar ea – w hi l e the t enant s i n Ba r r o ws s har ed pos s es s i on of one m al l bui l di ng, and the ai r l i nes i n Kant oni des s har ed pos s es s i on o f o n e a irp o rt te rm in a l. S ee A nt enucc i , 514 A

. 2d at77. T he Ba r r o ws and Kant oni des fac i l i t i es al s o hous ed a much l ar ger n u m b e r of ten a n ts i n m u c h c lo se r pr o x im ity th a n th e M a p le S h ad e S h o p p ing C en ter. T h e f a c ts o f th e in st a n t c a se a re m u c h m o re sim ilar to t hos e pr es ent ed i n J

a c ks on . L ike m o st K -m art an d L o w e’s s t or es , L ow e’ s occupi es a s epar at e bui l di ng t hat s i t s at a di s t ance fr o m t h e t h r e e o t h e rt e n a n t s i n t h e M a p l e Sh a d e Sh o p p i ng C enter
. It s parki ng l ot i s defi ned and setapartby “cartcorr al s” t hathous e Low e’ s cart s and ar e m arked by L ow e’ s s i gns , w hi ch demonst r at es t hatt he t enant s have j oi nt l yi ns p ect ed and exer ci s ed contr ol overs epar at e s ect ion s of the parki ng ar ea. T he cartcorr al s al so si gn al t o the cust om e r th a t L ow e’s i s a sep ara te en ti tyw ith it s o w n resp o n sibil it ies, le a d in g L o w e’s patr ons t o “expe ct []

. . . t hat s afe pas s age w i l l be af for ded fr om th e p a r k i n g f

a c ility to th e [ L o w e ’s ] t o w h ic h th e ya re in v ite d .”7 W ar r i ngt on , 499 A

. 2d at 1029. I n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , a N ew J er s eycour tw oul d l i kel yhol d t hat there i s no di s t i nct i on b etw ee n p rop ri etor-o w n ers a n d p rop ri etor-ten an ts. A co n tr ary h o lding co u ld lead to a n ab su rd re su lt , as a K -m art or L o w e’s s t or e’ s dut yof ca re w oul d depend on w hethert he s t or e s t ood al one on a h ighw ayorw i t hi n a fe w hundr ed fe etof another te n a n t in a “ s h o p p in g c e n te r.” T h e m a jo ritysta tes th a t “a L o w e ’s c u sto m e r . . . c o u ld par k a n ywhe r e i n t h e l o t ” a n d t h a t“ t h e r e i s n o to n e ‘ d efi ned ro u te’ f r o m th e lo t to th e sto re .” I d isa g re e . S in c e th e M a p le Shade Shoppi ng C ent erhas onl yt hr ee di s t i ncts t or es – a L o w e’s, a fit n ess c en ter, an d a m attress store – it s cu stom ers m o st lik e ly p a rk d ire c tlyin f ro n t o f th e sin g le s to re th e yp lan to vi s i tand do notm eande r t hr ough t he parki ng l oton an ext ended s hoppi ng t r i p t hatenc o m pas s es m ul t i pl e s t ops . T her efor e, t he “d ef ined rou te” ex tend s fro m the pa rkin g lot in fron t o f L o w e’s t o t he Low e’ s s t or e entr ance . T he publ i c pol i cy cons i der at i ons ar t i cul at ed by t he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our ti n Stew artal s o s uppor ta f ind ing of l i abi l i t yi n t he pr es entcas e. Fi r s t , t he im p o s i t i on of a dutyof c a re w ill p ro v id e a re m e d yto H o lm e s, w h o , o th e r th a n h is fai l ur e t o exami ne the publ i c r ecor ds t o det erm i ne the ow nerof th e M a p le S h a d e S h o p p in g C e n te r, i s a n “ in n o c e n t p la in tif f.” Stew art , 432 A

. 2d at887. M or e i m por t ant l y , al l ow i ng pl ai nt i ffs l i ke H ol m es t o pur s ue thei rcl ai m s g ive s L ow e’ s “an i ncent i ve t o keep [i t s parki ng l ot ] i n pr operr epai r . ” I d. T hi s m akes s ens e. E v e n b e y o n d o w n e rs, w h o m a y o r m a y n o t k e e p w a tch o v e r th e ir pr oper t y , t enant s “ar e i n an i deal pos i t ion to ins pect[parki ng l ot s ] and t o t ake pr om pt act i on t o cur e def ect s . ” I d. a t8 8 8

. To8 h o ld o th e rw ise w o u ld a llo w ten a n ts to tu rn a b lin d e ye to danger ous par ki ng l otors i dew al k condi t i ons w i t h t he as s ur ance th a t th e yw ill n o t b e h e ld re sp o n sib le. F in a lly , li a b ili tyw ill

“ e lim in a te
. . . arb itrar in e ss ” b yp lac in g p lain tiff s w h o f ile s u it againstpropri et or- ow ners and those w ho fi l e sui ta g a i nst p ro p ri e to r- te n a n ts in th e s a m e p o s itio n . I d. at887. T he majorit y expr es s es a l egi t i m at e conc ern t hat“the i mpo s i t i o n o f

a d u t yo n t h e t e n a n t s wou l d r e s u l ti n d u p l i c a t i ve e f f o rt a n d in te rf

e re w ith th e la n d lo rd ’s m a in te n a n c e p ro g ra m .” K eepi ng i n m i nd t hat w e ar e char ged w i t h pr edi ct i ng N ew J er s ey Supr eme C our t deci s i ons , not w i t h fas hi oni ng a pr efe r abl e rul e, I di sagree that this con cern ou t w ei gh s tho se I hav e j ust expr es s ed. T h e i m pos i t i on of a dutyof ca r e w i l l pr obabl ynot i nci t e t enant s t o engage i n t hei row n compet i ng m ai nt enanc e pr ogr ams. R ather , t enant s w i l l be enc our aged t o keep a w at chful ey e overl eas ed pr emi s es and gi ve pr om ptnot i fi cat i on to lan d lo r d s w h e n p ro b lem s a rise . In th e e v e n t th a t a te n a n t is hel d l i abl e fori t s patr ons ’ i nj ur i es , the t enantw i l l have the opt i on o f p ur s ui ng an i ndemni fi cat i on act i on agai ns tt he re sp o n s ib le lan d lo rd , a p o in t th a t th e m a jo rityo p in io n f

a ils to stres s. T h e re f

o re , f o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, I r e s p e c tf u lly d iss e n t.