Potter v. Furniture Mfrs. Bldg., Inc., 28 N.Y.2d 205 (1971)

A landlord is not liable for injuries sustained by a business invitee of a tenant on premises controlled by the tenant when the landlord could reasonably believe the tenant would remedy a temporary condition.

Summary

Marion Potter was injured when she tripped over a bed frame inside the furniture suite of Van Stee Corporation, a tenant of Furniture Manufacturers Building, Inc. Potter was a business invitee of Van Stee, brought to the suite by a retail dealer. The bed frame had been moved to the suite by Building employees after a furniture exposition. The Court of Appeals held that while Van Stee could be liable for negligence, the Building was not, because it was reasonable for the Building to assume that Van Stee would not leave the bed frame in a dangerous position for an extended period. The sole liability should rest on the party controlling the premises and responsible for the dangerous condition.

Facts

Furniture Manufacturers Building, Inc. (Building) owned a building leased to furniture manufacturers. Van Stee Corporation (Van Stee) leased a suite in the building. Van Stee also temporarily displayed furniture on the ninth floor for a furniture exposition held in September 1962. After the exposition, Building employees moved Van Stee’s displayed material, including a bed frame, from the ninth floor to Van Stee’s regular suite, placing the material just inside the entrance. It was Van Stee’s practice to allow retail dealers to bring retail customers into its suite. On December 29, 1962, Marion Potter, a retail customer, was brought to Van Stee’s suite by a retail dealer. Potter tripped over the bed frame and was injured. The incident occurred under circumstances of location, color, and lighting where a jury could find negligence on Van Stee’s part and a lack of negligence on Potter’s part. The material had been moved sometime between the end of September and November 15.

Procedural History

Potter sued both Van Stee and Building for her injuries. The trial court found both defendants liable. The appellate division affirmed. Building appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the owner of a building is liable for injuries sustained by a business invitee of a tenant on premises controlled by the tenant, when the injury is caused by a condition the owner could reasonably believe the tenant would remedy.

Holding

No, because in these circumstances the sole liability should rest on the party having control of the premises where the danger caused injury to its business invitee.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished between the responsibility of Van Stee and Building, stating that Mrs. Potter was in the premises as a business invitee of Van Stee. The court reasoned that Building, in returning the bed frame and other material to Van Stee’s suite, “would be justified in believing the material would not be left over a long period of time in position to become a danger to customers in premises which Van Stee controlled and used in its business.” Because the material was moved sometime between the end of September and November 15, and the accident occurred on December 29, the court concluded that “the sole liability should rest on the party having control of the premises where the danger caused injury to its business invitee.” The court emphasized Van Stee’s control over the premises and its responsibility for maintaining a safe environment for its business invitees. The decision highlights the importance of control over the premises in determining liability for injuries sustained due to dangerous conditions. It suggests that landlords are not automatically liable for injuries on leased premises, especially when they have reason to believe the tenant will address potential hazards.