Court Opinion

ID: 9542919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:40:20.179591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:16.737867
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
My concurrence is not premised upon the holding of the majority that there cannot be a duty of any kind owed by a tenant with respect to a business invitee vis-a-vis defective common areas. That such a duty may exist is reflected in cases such as Levy v. Home Depot, Inc. (1987) Fla. App., 518 So.2d 941; Valdez v. Warner (1987) 106 N.M. 305, 742 P.2d 517; Mostert v. CBL & Associates (1987) Wyo., 741 P.2d 1090; Hopkins v. F.W. Woolworth Co. (1981) 11 Mass.App.Ct. 708, 419 N.E.2d 302.
I concur in the affirmance of the summary judgment because the sole duty alleged by Morris and involved as an issue in the summary judgment was a duty on the part of Hacienda with respect to construction and maintenance of the stairway. I agree with the majority that Hacienda could not have been negligent in this regard because it did not construct the stairway and it had no duty with regard to maintenance of the stairway.