Opinion ID: 878749
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Nicholsons

Text: The Nicholsons, d/b/a Nicholson, Inc. and d/b/a Apple Creek Ltd. and Property Management Inc., hereafter Nicholsons, owned and managed the Apple Creek Apartments that border the irrigation ditch where Jaylon Limberhand drowned on June 27, 1981. On the day Jaylon drowned, he and his mother, Connie Limberhand, were visiting Connie's sister who was a tenant of the Apple Creek Apartments. The District Court sustained Nicholsons' motion for summary judgment holding that Nicholsons owed no legal duty to the appellant or appellant's decedent. Appellant contends that the question of whether Nicholsons breached the common law duty to keep the premises reasonably safe and to warn of any hidden or lurking danger is one a jury should decide. We agree. It is well-settled law in Montana that the social guest of a tenant in the common areas of an apartment complex is afforded a degree of protection from harm in relation to the duty of a landlord. Piedalue v. Clinton Elementary School District No. 2 (Mont. 1984), 692 P.2d 20, 41 St.Rep. 2344; Rennick v. Hoover (1980), 186 Mont. 167, 606 P.2d 1079; Olson v. Kayser (1973), 161 Mont. 241, 505 P.2d 394. The grounds surrounding an apartment complex are part of the common area. See Olson, supra. We have said earlier in this opinion that the status of Limberhand as a social guest is not controlling. Nicholsons' duty is governed by the provisions of section 27-1-701, MCA, supra. The issue of Nicholsons' potential liability based on breach of a duty owed Limberhand's decedent poses a two-part query. One, could an irrigation ditch constitute a sufficient danger to tenants or their guests of an apartment complex to require that the landlord take precautionary measures in order to satisfy his duty to keep the premises reasonably safe? Two, does the fact that the irrigation ditch is owned by another and is located on land adjoining the landlord's common area absolve the landlord of liability as a matter of law? The apartment owners owed a duty in this case to use ordinary care to have their premises reasonably safe or to warn of any hidden or lurking danger. What constitutes reasonably safe premises is generally considered to be a question of fact. Whether a premises is safe depends to a large extent on what use the property is put to, its setting, location and other physical characteristics, and the type of person who would foreseeably visit the premises, as well as the specific type of hazard or unsafe condition alleged. These and other factors are embodied in the legal concept of reasonable under the circumstances. For example, the existence of an open irrigation ditch in a farmer's field poses little danger compared to the same irrigation ditch located near an apartment complex populated by families with small children. The duty of a landlord under section 27-1-701, MCA to use ordinary care in managing his property imposes on him a duty to make the premises reasonably safe under the test of ordinary care for all persons who forseeably might properly come on the premises, old and young, large and small. Tenants and their social guests are necessarily users of rental apartment complexes. We conclude that a question of material fact exists as to whether the irrigation ditch could present sufficient danger to tenants and their social guests of this apartment complex so that by not taking any remedial or warning measures the landlords may have breached their duty to keep the premises reasonably safe. Whether the landlord breached this duty is a jury question. We do not mean that landlords are absolute insurers of the safety of their property and environs. What we do mean is that the duty of landlords to others in the management of their property is to use that degree of ordinary care which reasonable persons would use under the same or similar circumstances. Having affirmatively answered the first question of the two-part query, we address the second question. How does the fact the ditch is not located on Nicholsons' land affect Nicholsons' duty to keep his premises reasonably safe? Nicholsons flatly state in their brief that there exists no duty on the part of a landowner to guard against conditions on adjoining property over which they have no dominion or control. Nicholsons cite cases that stand for the proposition that an adjacent property owner is not liable for injuries sustained by a youth who gained access to a hazardous condition by crossing his land. These cases are clearly distinguishable from the instant case. Two cases, however, are on point. Walters v. Greenglade Villas Homeowners Association (Fla.App. 1981), 399 So.2d 538, 539, holds there is no duty on a condominium owners' association to erect a fence to shield small children from the hazards of a canal. In Jones v. United States (4th Cir.1957), 241 F.2d 26, the federal court construed Maryland law as it existed in 1957 (Maryland did not recognize the doctrine of attractive nuisance) and held that the primary duty to inform, advise and protect a child of tender years must rest upon the parents or others in loco parentis. Recently, in Piedalue v. Clinton Elementary School District No. 2 (Mont. 1984), 692 P.2d 20, 41 St.Rep. 2344, we rejected a rigid property line determination of liability. In Piedalue, the plaintiff was a social guest visiting a tenant of property owner, Al Baide. Baide maintained a primary road for ingress and egress from his trailer park. Another road which appeared also to provide ingress and egress from the premises abruptly ended in an irrigation ditch 60 feet beyond Baide's property line. We held that Baide's duty to have a reasonably safe premises could extend beyond the premises to the dangerous condition located on land adjacent to Baide's property. The area owned by Nicholsons adjoining the irrigation ditch was in the dominion and control of Nicholsons. If the instrumentality causing harm is located adjacent to the landowner's property, and the instrumentality poses a clear and foreseeable danger to persons properly using the landowner's premises, we see no reason to shield the landowner from liability as a matter of law. A duty to take some reasonable precautions may exist. This duty may in some instances be discharged by a warning; under other circumstances remedial action may be required. A jury should be given the opportunity to determine if Nicholsons used reasonable care under the circumstances in discharging any duty they may have owed to Jaylon Limberhand to maintain a safe premises. The fact that the irrigation ditch was not located on Nicholsons' land does not as a matter of law bar appellant's claim. Nicholsons further contend that § 85-6-107, MCA, statutorily imposes exclusive liability on incorporated water users associations (Big Ditch Company) for any injury caused by failure to maintain safe working and operating conditions of an irrigation system. Nicholsons assert this statute bars appellant's case against them. Nicholsons read the statute too broadly. Section 85-6-107, MCA, appears in the code defining the rights and liabilities of ditch companies with respect to the State of Montana. The State disclaims liability for injuries allegedly caused by its regulation of such companies. We do not find the statute applicable. Nicholsons argue that constructing a fence or other barricade would interfere with Big Ditch Company's rights and place Nicholsons in the untenable position of safeguarding its property or being subjected to suit by Big Ditch Company. This argument is based on speculation and lacks merit. Nicholsons offered no proof that erecting a fence would interfere with Big Ditch Company's rights. A fence constructed on Nicholsons' property may not interfere with Big Ditch Company's right-of-way anymore than the construction of the apartment complex itself. Nicholsons further argue that they should not be required to construct a fence because other landowners have not. Nicholsons' prudence is not measured by the imprudence, if any, of others. Nicholsons' duty is measured by the standard of reasonable care. We reverse the order of the District Court granting summary judgment to Nicholsons and hold that issues of material fact exist concerning whether Nicholsons exercised reasonable care in maintaining a safe premises. We remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Reversed in part; affirmed in part. Costs to appellant. TURNAGE, C.J., and HARRISON, MORRISON, WEBER, GULBRANDSON and HUNT, JJ., concur.