|
Homeowner Associations
Assumption of the risk bars claim by employee of a security company hired to protect the premises when injured while performing his duties.
In
Tilley vs. CZ Master Association (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 464, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 151, a security guard employed by a security firm sued the HOA which had contracted with the firm for security services after he was injured while responding to complaints about a party on the premises. The Court held that one who hires a person to confront a particular risk owes no duty to protect the person against that risk. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that parties were "inherently dangerous" even if it were assumed underage drinking would take place.
A homeowners association may be ordered to levy an emergency assessment on its homeowners in order to pay a judgment.
In James F. O'Toole Co., Inc., vs. Los Angeles Kingsbury Court Owners Association ( 2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 549, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 894, the court of appeal upheld an order requiring a homeowners association (HOA) to impose a special emergency assessment in order to satisfy a judgment. The HOA had hired the plaintiff to negotiate with its insurance company after the Northridge earthquake and then refused to pay the plaintiff after the claims were settled. The plaintiff insurance adjustor sued the HOA and won a judgment. The HOA conducted a meeting but its members refused to impose an emergency assessment. Plaintiff then successfully obtained an order under Civil Code Section 1366 wherein the court appointed a receiver to carry out the court order that an emergency assessment be levied.
Most
decisions of condominium association boards are subject to
the "business judgment rule".
In Larriden v. LaJolla Shores (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249, 87
Cal.Rptr.2d 237, a condominium unit owner brought an action
for declaratory and injunctive relief for the association's
failure/refusal to fumigate the entire building for termites.
The trial court entered judgment for the association, applying
what it called the "business judgment rule" in evaluating
the decisions of the board. The Court of Appeal reversed,
stating that the board owed plaintiff an objective duty of
reasonable care, akin to that of a landlord to his tenants.
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court, holding that
the decisions of the board of directors of a condominium owners
association, like that of a corporate board of directors,
are entitled to deferential review in light of the board's
obligations to the association (corporation) as a whole.
It should be noted that the court did carve out an exception
to this rule in cases of third-party assault.
|
