Landowner Control & Lease: Key in Premises Liability

The defendants, Michele M. McHugh and Michele M. McHugh Trustee of the Michele M. McHugh Irrevocable Trust, move for summary judgment on the grounds that they were an “out of possession owner/landlord” having wholly demised the premises to the co-defendant, 1067 Main Street, LLC.

Landowner’s Control of Premises: Importance of Lease Agreement

The action arises from a slip and fall on the property that the plaintiff alleges was maintained and controlled by both the defendants and the co-defendants. The plaintiff alleges that she slipped on water at the premises and suffered injuries. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants attached an affidavit from the owner of the subject premises. The affidavit provides that at the time of the subject accident, the premises was “wholly demised and under complete control of the co-defendant 1067 Main Street, LLC.” However, the defendants did not attach any lease agreement in support of this assertion. In her objection, the plaintiff argues that the absence of the lease is dispositive of the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff relies heavily on the language of the Connecticut Supreme Court, which has held that unless it is definitely expressed in the lease, the circumstances of the particular case determine whether the lessor has reserved control of the premises or whether they were under the exclusive dominion of the tenant. Based on this, the plaintiff argues that in the absence of the lease between the defendants and co-defendants defining who had control over the subject area, summary judgment should be denied. The court determines that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the control of the area where the plaintiff fell.

Failure to Provide Lease Results in Summary Judgment Motion

The defendants admit they owned the property where the plaintiff fell but failed to attach a copy of the lease agreement. The court finds that such an omission is fatal to their motion because liability for injuries caused by defective premises does not depend on who holds legal title, but rather on who has possession and control of the property. Therefore, whether the landlord or another party is liable to the plaintiff for their injuries remains an issue to be addressed pending determination of who maintains, possesses, or controls the area where the plaintiff was injured. Based on the foregoing, the court denies the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Reardon v. 1067 Main St., LLC, No. UWY-CV-24-6078874-S, 2025 WL 762598 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 6, 2025)