(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Lake v. APH Enterprises, LLC , 306 Ga. App. 317, 319, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010). Indeed, "landlords still fully part with possession of leased premises when they retain limited entry or inspection rights for landlord-related purposes."
Finally, Sidhi's right to enter the store “for the purposes of inspection, repair or showing to prospective purchaser” or future tenant does not render it liable for injuries caused by its tenant's negligence. See Lake v. APH Enterprises, LLC, 306 Ga.App. 317, 319, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010) (“Landlords still fully part with possession of leased premises when they retain limited entry or inspection rights for landlord-related purposes.”); Webb v. Danforth, 234 Ga.App. 211, 212, 505 S.E.2d 860 (1998).
Consequently, an out-of-possession landlord cannot be held liable for damages for a criminal assault on the leased premises, unless the assault was due to negligent construction or maintenance of the premises. See Savannah State Univ. Foundation v. Lewis, 370 Ga. App. 180, 181–86 (1), 895 S.E.2d 525 (2023); Starks v. USG Real Estate Foundation III, 361 Ga. App. 406, 411-412 (1), 864 S.E.2d 621 (2021); Lake v. APH Enterprises, 306 Ga. App. 317, 319-320, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010); Godwin v. Olshan, 161 Ga. App. 35, 36 (2), 288 S.E.2d 850 (1982) (construing predecessor to OCGA § 44-7-14). (b) Status of Kasulka Properties
Under these provisions, there "is no evidence that [the LLC] contractually undertook to remain in possession of’ any parts of the premises. Lake v. APH Enterprises, 306 Ga. App. 317, 320, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010). Rather, "the use of the tenements really belongs to the tenant during the lease," Starks, 361 Ga. App. at 410 (1), 864 S.E.2d 621 (citation and punctuation omitted).
“Landlords who fully part with possession and the right of possession of the premises are not liable to third parties for damages arising from the tenant's negligence” pursuant to OCGA § 44–7–14, which provides: Lake v. APH Enterprises, LLC, 306 Ga.App. 317, 319, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010).[h]aving fully parted with possession and the right of possession, the landlord is not responsible to third persons for damages resulting from the negligence or illegal use of the premises by the tenant; provided, however, the landlord is responsible for damages arising from defective construction or for damages arising from the failure to keep the premises in repair.
(Citation omitted.) Lake v. APH Enterprises, 306 Ga.App. 317, 319, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010). “Such limited rights do not evidence such dominion and control of the premises so as to vitiate the landlord's limited liability imposed by OCGA § 44–7–14 and replace it with the liability imposed by OCGA § 51–3–1.”
McCulloughv. Reyes, 287 Ga. App. 483, 486-87 (1), 651 S.E.2d 810 (2007); see Starks v. USG Real Estate Foundation III, 361 Ga. App. 406, 410, 864 S.E.2d 621 (2021). See Lake v. APH Enterprises, LLC, 306 Ga App. 317, 319, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010) ("a landlord’s right to inspect is not the equivalent of the right to possess premises, so as to make the landlord liable under OCGA § 44-7-14…. Landlords still fully part with possession of leased premises when they retain limited entry or inspection rights for landlord-related purposes.") (citation and punctuation omitted.).
Riggs argues that the landlord also is subject to liability under OCGA § 44–7–14, but that Code section deals with landlords' responsibilities for premises of which they have “fully parted with possession and the right of possession.” See generally Lake v. APH Enters., 306 Ga.App. 317, 319–320, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010) (discussing when landlord is subject to liability under OCGA § 44–7–14 as opposed to OCGA § 51–3–1). Under OCGA § 51–3–1, “[w]here an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.
” Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991). Our review is de novo. Lake v. APH Enterprises, 306 Ga.App. 317, 318, 702 S.E.2d 654 (2010). The trial court found that the dispositive facts were not in dispute and held that Meek extended the term of the lease for one additional 12–month term; that both Meek and landlord mutually departed from the terms of the lease, resulting in a monthly rent of $1,700 for that additional term, instead of $1,900 for months 13–24 or the $2,550 required by the lease if the tenant holds over.