|
3913 A commercial lease that, without mentioning "negligence," purported to hold the lessor harmless from liability for personal injury or property damage sustained by the lessee and that also provided that notwithstanding negligence the lessor would
not be liable for the lessee's loss of profit did not prevent the imposition of liability for active negligence by the lessor that resulted in property damage to the lessee; refusing to repair wet conditions when requested to do so was active negligence, for which liability could be imposed; a requirement that the lessee maintain its own replacement insurance did not affect the lessor's liability for the lessee's damage.CitationBURNETT v CHIMNEYSWEEP (Moldy Premises) 123 CA4 1057 [See: Tunkl v Regents 60 C2 92; Salton Bay v Imperial 172 CA3 914; Sanchez v Bally's 68 CA4 62, T/AT 1/99; Auto Equity Sales v Superior Court 57 C2 450]
|
|
