Opinion ID: 1904447
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Liability of the College

Text: Appellants contend the College is liable as the owner and occupier of the land where these tragic events occurred. We conclude that summary judgment was properly entered in favor of the College because the uncontested facts demonstrate beyond dispute that the College had surrendered control of the premises to the County during the period of time involved in this action. The applicable principle of law is well stated in Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 63, at 434 (W. Keeton 5th ed. 1984): When land is leased to a tenant, the law of property regards the lease as equivalent to a sale of the premises for the term. The lessee acquires an estate in the land, and becomes for the time being both owner and occupier, subject to all of the responsibilities of one in possession, to those who enter upon the land and those outside of its boundaries. (Footnotes omitted.) Even a temporary surrender of possession not accompanied by a lease may relieve an owner of liability for unsafe conditions arising after his surrender. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 422 Comment c involving relinquishment of possession to a contractor for construction, demolition, or repair. The Use Agreement entered into between the College and the County granted to the County the right to use and occupy the property for a specified term, and provided that [t]he County shall return said property to the College in a condition no worse than the condition of the property prior to the Use Agreement. The agreement conveyed the exclusive right of occupancy to the County, and therefore effectively transferred to the County the duties owed by an occupier of land.