Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that a premises-liability duty may be owed by a possessor of property, not only by the title owner. It further held that Northgate Mall Partnership was not a necessary or indispensable party in the plaintiff’s action against Simon Property Group, Inc., a general partner, because Washington’s Revised Uniform Partnership Act did not require the partnership to be joined before proceeding against an individual partner. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals and reversed the trial court’s dismissal under CR 12(b)(7).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a premises-liability duty of care is owed only by the title owner of property or also by a possessor, operator, or other person exercising control over the property.
- Whether Northgate Mall Partnership was a necessary and indispensable party under CR 19 in an action against Simon Property Group, Inc. for its own alleged negligence and for conduct occurring within the scope of partnership business under chapter 25.05 RCW.
- Whether RCW 25.05.130(4) requires a plaintiff to sue and exhaust partnership assets before proceeding against an individual partner.
Holdings
- A premises-liability action may proceed against a possessor of property; title ownership is not required to establish a duty of care.
- Northgate Mall Partnership was not a necessary or indispensable party because Simon Property could be liable for its own tortious conduct and could provide complete relief without the partnership's joinder.
Key quotations
“under long-standing law, the test in a premises liability action is whether one is the “possessor” of property, not whether someone is a “true owner” (the titleholder) of property.” (496)
“But a plaintiff need not sue the partnership as a precondition for proceeding against a partner.” (501)
“Because Simon Property can provide complete relief should Gildon prevail in her claim, the Partnership is not a necessary party under CR 19(a).” (505)
Factual background
On August 6, 2000, Valarie Gildon slipped on wet tile in a common walkway inside Northgate Mall while performing cleaning services for a tenant and sustained a head injury. She alleged that Simon Property Group, Inc. owned, managed, operated, controlled, possessed, and maintained the premises and was negligent in maintaining the walkway and failing to warn of unsafe conditions. Northgate Mall Partnership held title to the mall, while Simon Property was alleged to be a general partner and possessor or operator of the property.
Procedural history
Gildon sued Simon Property Group, Inc. for injuries allegedly sustained in a slip-and-fall at Northgate Mall. After the statute of limitations had run, the trial court denied Gildon's motion to amend the complaint to add Northgate Mall Partnership and Simon Property Group, L.P., and dismissed the action for failure to join Northgate Mall Partnership. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the partnership was not indispensable. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.