A woman who rented a self-storage unit in New Jersey can sue the owner for its alleged failure to maintain the premises notwithstanding the owner’s attempt to limit its liability, a federal court has ruled.
The ruling, by the U.S. District Court in Camden, means that Jackeline Martinez-Santiago, who in February 2012 rented a storage space for $63 a month from Public Storage, can continue a class-action that she filed last December against the company on behalf of herself and other consumers.
The decision highlights the principle that a business cannot renounce responsibility to maintain its premises in a safe condition for customers. It also shows that terms in a lease agreement do not become enforceable simply because a consumer initials or otherwise assents to them.
At issue was a provision in the lease agreement signed by Martinez-Santiago that limited Public Storage’s liability for injury to people or damages to property in the absence of fraud.
Five days after Martinez-Santiago rented the unit, her then-boyfriend, Orlando Colon, whom Martinez-Santiago had listed on the lease as an “alternate contact name,” slipped on a patch of ice in front of the unit. Colon later sued Public Storage for his injuries, asserting that the company failed to keep the premises safe.
Martinez-Santiago also sought to cancel a provision in the agreement that required her to indemnify Public Storage for Colon’s claims.
For its part, Public Storage, which has about 2,200 locations nationwide, sought indemnification from Martinez-Santiago for Colon’s injury and asserted that the lease provisions are lawful under New Jersey law.
The court rejected the company’s contentions. “Businesses are in the best position to maintain their premises for the safe use of customers, and enforcing the exculpatory provisions would give Public Storage permission to be careless – negligent, reckless – in the maintenance of its property,” wrote Judge Jerome B. Simandle in an opinion dated August 14. “Public Storage has a duty to guard against any known dangerous conditions on its property or conditions that should have been discovered.”
“That Public Storage would seek to make Martinez-Santiago responsible for money defendant owed to Colon based on defendant’s alleged failure to clear snow and ice in front of its own storage unit stands outside the norm of reasonable business practice,” Simandle added.
According to the court, walking outside a storage unit is not an inherently risky activity comparable to activities such as exercising at fitness centers, which the courts have allowed to enforce clauses that shield them from liability for customers’ injuries.
The ruling reaffirms the common law rule that a business or other possessor of real estate that is open to the public at large must protect people who come onto the premises from reasonably knowable hazards. Business owners have a legal responsibility to inspect their premises at reasonable intervals and to either eliminate the hazard or warn customers of its existence.
The court also scratched a provision in Martinez-Santiago’s lease that required her to assert any legal claim against Public Storage within 12 months of the occurrence that gave rise to the demand.
The company’s reliance on the provision “would be unreasonable because the time to bring suit challenging clauses for the tenant’s liability and indemnification for Public Service’s negligence could expire before a tangible loss is suffered,” wrote Simandle, who noted that the New Jersey laws under which Martinez-Santiago sued Public Storage have a six-year statute of limitations.
“A consumer would have to be clairvoyant to challenge contractual fine print addressed to circumstances (like indemnification) that did not themselves arise when the contract was signed,” Simandle wrote.
Michael Galpern, a lawyer for Martinez-Santiago, termed the lease agreement “an incredibly anti-consumer contract where Public Storage, for years, has been taking advantage of people,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal, which first reported the ruling.
Lawyers for Public Storage did not comment.