On April 21, 2026, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District affirmed summary judgment entered in favor of a firm client in a negligence suit arising from a fall from the elevated platform of a raised forklift. The client owns certain commercial property which it leased to another entity for purposes of operating a retail premium cigar store, lounge and brewery. The tenant company purchased a forklift and “man bucket” from the previous occupant.
Plaintiff was an employee of the tenant company and claimed injury at the premises while working for his employer. He alleged the forklift with the man bucket presented a dangerous condition on the premises. He further argued the landlord company owed him various duties, including duties related to workplace safety and compliance with applicable regulations. Plaintiff also alleged that the landlord company undertook duties to inspect, manage and make safe its premises.
The landlord company moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was injured while working for his employer, which had control over the premises as the tenant, and that the landlord company did not owe a duty of care to the tenant or its employees.
In affirming summary judgment in favor of the landlord company, the Western District rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the absence of an occupancy permit from the governing municipality showed the tenant company did not have exclusive possession and control of the premises. The court held the rights of the parties to the property were as reflected in the lease and not whether an occupancy permit had been issued.
Plaintiff also argued the knowledge of the tenant company’s president and owner, who was also the owner of the landlord company, of the presence of the allegedly dangerous forklift and man bucket triggered a duty for the landlord company to disclose the presence of that condition. The appellate court found that, since the individual at issue had roles in both the tenant company and the landlord company, any knowledge he had was the same when acting as the sole member of the landlord company and when acting as president of the tenant company.
Finally, plaintiff asserted the landlord company owed a general duty of care to the plaintiff irrespective of the landlord-tenant relationship, again based on the alleged knowledge of the individual who owned the landlord company and was also the president of the tenant company. The court found this argument flawed, however, in that plaintiff was invited onto the premises to work on behalf of the tenant company, the tenant company purchased and paid for the forklift and the tenant company exercised consistent ownership of and control over the forklift.
trending ATTORNEYS on baker sterchi
