When does a commercial tenant owe a duty for parking lot injuries? MacFarlane v. Applebee's Restaurant Explained

In premises liability cases involving commercial tenants, determining who owes a duty to injured customers depends on the critical concept of possessory control. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this issue in MacFarlane v. Applebee’s Restaurant, clarifying when tenants in multi-tenant shopping centers can be held liable for parking lot injuries.

Background and Facts

MacFarlane slipped on ice in the parking lot adjacent to an Applebee’s restaurant located in a shopping center. Applebee’s leased space that included both the restaurant building and surrounding parking area. However, the lease specified that parking would be “non-exclusive” and in compliance with shopping center criteria and existing easements. Crucially, the lease made the landlord “responsible for the maintenance of all common areas,” including snow removal, while requiring Applebee’s to pay only a pro-rata share of maintenance costs.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Applebee’s qualified as a possessor of land under Utah premises liability law. Under the Hill v. Superior Property Management Services framework, a possessor must have plenary control over property, including two core capacities: (1) the right to exclude others from the property, and (2) the right to take all necessary precautions and make necessary repairs.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found Applebee’s lacked both core capacities of possessory control. First, the non-exclusive parking provision and overlay of easement agreements meant Applebee’s could not exclude others from the parking lot. Second, the lease expressly made the landlord responsible for all common area maintenance, including snow removal, giving Applebee’s no authority to perform major repairs or maintenance in the parking area. The court emphasized that theoretical ability to perform maintenance cannot establish duty without actual possessory control.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for defending commercial tenants in premises liability cases. Courts will examine lease provisions carefully to determine whether tenants have meaningful control over common areas. The decision also highlights policy considerations favoring landlord responsibility in multi-tenant settings, including avoiding duplicative maintenance efforts and uncertainty about responsibility boundaries. For plaintiffs’ attorneys, the decision underscores the importance of identifying the proper defendant based on actual control rather than mere lease relationships.