Does land ownership alone create premises liability for landlords? Peragallo v. W&T Holdings Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed a fundamental question in premises liability law: whether land ownership alone establishes a duty of care, or whether substantial control and possession are required. In Peragallo v. W&T Holdings, the court affirmed summary judgment for a landlord, clarifying the distinction between ownership and possessorship under Utah tort law.

Background and Facts

W&T Holdings owned a building in Smithfield that it leased to Paragon Medical under a comprehensive lease agreement. The lease gave Paragon exclusive possession of the premises, including parking lots and sidewalks, with responsibility for all ordinary maintenance including snow removal. When Bonnie Peragallo slipped on ice while walking on the sidewalk, she sued only W&T for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for W&T, finding it was not the possessor of the premises.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether W&T, as landowner, owed a duty of care to Peragallo despite not being the possessor of the property. Under Utah law, sections 343 and 343A of the Second Restatement of Torts establish duties for “possessors of land,” not merely owners. The court had to determine who qualified as the possessor based on occupation and control of the premises.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the MacFarlane v. Applebee’s Restaurant analysis, focusing on two core capacities that establish substantial control: the right to exclude others and the right to make necessary repairs. Here, Paragon had exclusive possession with quiet enjoyment rights and express maintenance responsibilities including snow removal. W&T retained only limited inspection rights requiring one-day notice. The court rejected Peragallo’s argument that “all owners are possessors,” emphasizing that substantial control, not mere ownership, determines possessorship and the corresponding duty of care.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah follows the Restatement approach requiring substantial control for premises liability. Practitioners defending landlords should carefully analyze lease terms to demonstrate that tenants have exclusive possession and maintenance authority. The decision also clarifies that boilerplate inspection clauses with notice requirements are insufficient to establish the substantial control necessary for possessorship. For plaintiffs, the decision emphasizes the importance of suing the actual possessor rather than relying solely on ownership theories.