## Facts

- Martha Ruoff suffered catastrophic injuries after a fall on a common-area stairway in a 152-unit condominium complex.
- She fell backward, landed at the bottom of the stairs, and her foot became wedged in a gap between the building and the stair edge.
- Her injuries included multiple skull fractures and severe, permanent neurological impairments requiring 24-hour care; medical expenses exceeded $750,000.
- Each unit owner held an undivided 1/152 interest in the common areas as a tenant in common.
- Recorded CC&Rs delegated control and management of the common areas to the homeowners association.
- The association carried $1 million in liability insurance for the complex.
- California law provided conditional immunity to volunteer HOA officers/directors for acts within the scope of duties, in good faith, and not willful, wanton, or grossly negligent; the statute did not state that it applied to the association or to unit owners.

## Issues

1. Whether individual condominium unit owners, as tenants in common of common areas, may be held liable in tort for injuries in those areas when control is delegated to a homeowners association.
2. Whether the statutory immunity for volunteer HOA officers and directors applies, or may be extended, to immunize individual unit owners from common-area premises liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments for the individual unit owners and remanded.
- Individual unit owners remained potentially liable for injuries arising from conditions in common areas they owned as tenants in common, despite delegated HOA management.
- The statutory immunity for volunteer HOA officers/directors did not extend to individual unit owners.
- Because the trial court’s ruling rested on an incorrect legal premise of nonliability, summary judgment was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Tenants in common who own property are generally subject to ordinary premises-liability duties for injuries caused by conditions on that property.
- A property owner’s duty of reasonable care is not eliminated merely because maintenance and control are delegated by contract or governing documents to another entity.
- Statutory immunities are construed according to their text; courts do not add beneficiaries not named by the Legislature.
- Statutes alleged to displace common-law duties are strictly construed; absent clear legislative direction, courts do not treat such statutes as abrogating established landowner liability.
- The existence of liability insurance and assessment mechanisms does not, by itself, extinguish common-law tort duties or justify categorical immunity.

## Conclusion

The court held that condominium unit owners who hold common areas as tenants in common may still face premises-liability claims for common-area injuries even when an HOA manages those areas, and it declined to extend volunteer-officer statutory immunity to ordinary unit owners.


Ruoff v. Harbor Creek Cmty. Ass’n, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)