Appeals court held that while liability for torts related to property normally passes from buyer to seller, if the seller retains effective control, the seller could be liable.
(Updated April 2008)

Appeals court held that a landlord had no responsibility for an attack by a vicious dog. The dog was under the control of a tenant, and the attack occurred when children trespassed into the gated property.
(Updated April 2008)

Appeals court held that the owner of a parking lot had the right to put a boot on an illegally parked car on its lot, so as to immobilize the car and force the owner to pay a fine to have the boot removed. To do this was not a trespass to the personal property of the owner of the car.
(Updated March 2008)

Minnesota high court held that under state law, a government may not obtain title to property by adverse possession. Hence, a road that was misplaced for decades, and infringes on private property, is likely a trespass and there may be a cause of action by the property owners.
(Updated February 2008)

Appeals court held that when a tenant improperly stayed in commercial property beyond the expiration of a lease, the tenant owed the market value of the rental property as damages. Since there was no other evidence about the rental value, the tenant would pay an amount equal to the regular rent.
(Updated February 2008)

Appeals court held that gas pipeline companies would be prevented from removing trees growing on an easement until a trial could determine if tree removal was really necessary for safety and pipeline maintenance.
(Updated January 2008)

South Carolina high court held that the owner of a canal where a ten-year old fell in and drowned, was not liable for negligence under the attractive nuisance doctrine as the boy was old enough to understand the danger, especially since he could not swim.
(Updated December 2007)

California high court held that the owner of a mobile home park did not breach his duty to a tenant injured by the gunfire of gang members who lived in or frequented the park. The gunfire was not foreseeable, so there was no obligation to have provided security.
(Updated October 2007)

New York high court held that once a landlord agrees to accept rent-assistance payments for low-income tenants under the Section 8 federal assistance program, the landlord may not opt out, as the federal rules become part of the lease.
(Updated October 2007)

Missouri high court held that a city acted improperly by giving a real estate developer authority to force sale of property for redevelopment purposes by condemnation proceedings. There was not sufficient evidence that the area was blighted to warrant condemnation.
(Updated September 2007)

Appeals court affirmed that for a towing company to deprive the rightful owner of a vehicle of the use of the vehicle without good cause was conversion, so damages were due.
(Updated May 2007)

Massachusetts high court held that the state would now use the mode of operation approach to determine liability in slip and fall cases. Rather than focus on knowledge by the store operator of a hazard, the focus is on the foreseeability of likely hazards given the circumstances.
(Updated May 2007)

New Mexico appeals court held that a landlord was not liable for allowing the space between guardrails to not be in compliance with building code standards set after the building was constructed. The guardrails would appear safe to an ordinary person even if not in compliance with modern building codes.
(Updated February 2007)

A child fell through the ice on an irrigation pond and drowned. The Delaware high court held that the owner of the pond was not negligent for creating an attractive nuisance by taking additional steps to prevent access to the pond by children.
(Updated February 2007)

Appeals court affirmed that a store had no duty to warn patrons of the fact that a blind employee on the premises used a guide cane. Hence, when a patron tripped over the cane, the store did not violate a duty of care. The danger posed by the cane was obvious.
(Updated February 2007)

Pennsylvania appeals court held that a private, non-profit organization that performs public functions is exempt by state law from mechanics' liens being imposed on its property as a result of its contractor not paying its suppliers.
(Updated February 2007)

Appeals court held that a real estate agency had no duty to warn a client of defects that existed in a home under construction that was being shown. The realtor has a duty to warn of dangers of which the realtor is aware, but not of all possible dangers that exist.
(Updated January 2007)

Kansas high court held that a business that fell in value due to reconfiguration of the road next to the business that made customer access difficult, was not inverse condemnation and no compensation for taking was due.
(Updated January 2007)

Appeals court held that a subcontractor had no right of action against a city to collect for work performed for a contractor who leased land from the city but failed to pay for the work. The right to impose a lien on public property exists only when statute permits it.
(Updated October 2006)

Trial court held that under Mississippi law the implied warranty of habitability applies to mobile homes and mobile home lots unless expressly waived by the lessee.
(Updated October 2006)

Appeals court held that a tenant had the right to refuse to occupy a house that contained a safety defect. The landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability and must return the damage deposit.
(Updated October 2006)

Arizona high court held that it would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Property that when servitudes are interpreted, the court will give effect to the intention of the parties determined from the language used in the instrument as a whole.
(Updated August 2006)

Appeals court held that a mechanics' lien filed by a lien filing service for a client was not frivolous or invalid because it was attested to by the filing service. The filing service was the authorized agent of the claimant, so could attest to the lien.
(Updated August 2006)

Iowa high court held that a building made uninhabitable by vibration from road construction was not subject to eminent domain proceedings as a taking. The damage was a consequence of temporary action, not a permanent occupation, so must be addressed by tort.
(Updated May 2006)

Appeals court held that a hotel cannot be sued for the loss of valuables taken from a guest’s room while the guest was sleeping even though the hotel issued a key to an unknown person during the night. The Innkeepers’ Act states that hotels are not liable for stolen valuables.
(Updated April 2006)

Mississippi high court held that a claim for unpaid mineral royalties comes under the law of personal property. As such, a three-year statute of limitation applied, not the ten-year statute of limitation that applies to interests in land.
(Updated February 2006)

California high court held that when a criminal act by a third party is a foreseeable possibility, a proprietor has an obligation to provide some assistance to its patrons to help prevent such an event.
(Updated February 2006)

Iowa high court held that a court could not give a jury the option of imposing liability in a case of premises liability based both on negligence and on res ipsa loquitur, as that would be prejudicial against the defendant.
(Updated February 2006)

Appeals court held that a private party had no right to enter on a public easement and remove soil from it. The easement, on private property, was for public benefit and did not give private parties the right to make use of the property.
(Updated February 2006)

Alabama high court held that when a contractor was sued for an injury suffered at a construction site where the city building code was not followed, it was not subject to liability for negligence per se, but to the rule of negligence. The per se rule applies only if a safety rule is violated that applies to a specific class of persons, not the general public.
(Updated November 2005)

SW Legal Virginia high court held that tenants who believed they were buying a house could recover the cost of major improvements they made to the property. Since there was no written agreement, there was no enforceable contract for sale, only a tenancy. The tenants were responsible for all monthly rent payments.
(Updated November 2005)

New York high court held that the imposition of a more restrictive easement on property as a condition of a construction permit was not a taking. The new conservation restriction did not differ significantly from the old and it granted the town new enforcement powers.
(Updated June 2005)

Colorado high court held that a state statute that defined premises liability supersedes the traditional common law definitions, so premises liability cases must be determined under the standard of care provided in the statute.
(Updated June 2005)

Maine high court held that a dinner guest who went, without knowledge of the property owner, to look in another house being built on the home owner's property, and was injured when he did, was a trespasser. The status of a guest owed a duty of care was lost when the guest went, uninvited, on other parts of the property.
(Updated May 2005)

Michigan high court held that a lumber company could not be held liable for damages under a state law because it did not have actual knowledge that it was selling lumber to an employee of a building company that forged documents to get goods in the name of her employer.
(Updated May 2005)

Appeals court held that an employee who was injured when she fell into a construction hole outside the back door of an office building had the right to sue the contractor for failing to provide more notice of the hazard than an e-mail distributed three days earlier.
(Updated April 2005)

Alabama high court held that when a jewelry salesman's car was stolen from a car wash while it was being dried, and a large amount of jewelry was stolen from the trunk, the car wash was responsible for the car, as a bailment for its care was created, but was not responsible for the jewelry.
(Updated November 2004)

Appeals court held that a long-time property owner, who had used a driveway to access his property for more than ten years, had obtained a prescriptive easement to continue access to his property. The new owners of the property that the driveway crossed could not prohibit his use of the driveway.
(Updated October 2004)

Appeals court held that when a tenant left the sidewalk to go on the grass, and tripped on an exposed drainage pipe, there could be no suit against the landlord for negligence. The pipe was an open and obvious danger, and the tenant voluntarily left the sidewalk.
(Updated April 2004)