The agreement under which plaintiff's employer operates the cafeteria where plaintiff fell for defendant museum expressly provides that it creates no landlord-tenant relationship, gives defendant a high degree of control over the cafeteria's operation, and otherwise shows that defendant did not cede exclusive occupancy and control of the cafeteria space to plaintiff's employer. Therefore, defendant remains subject to the property owner's common-law duty to maintain its premises...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
