Although H&S Code 104113 requires a “health studio” to acquire and maintain an automated external defibrillator (AED) on the premises, neither that statute nor the common law imposes any duty of the landlord of the building in which the health studio is located to provide an AED.  The landlord is not a “health studio” within the statute’s meaning since it did not make its own health equipment available, nor did it permit admission on a membership basis, but rather leased the space to a single tenant, the health club.  In Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 31, the Supreme Court held that a department store owes no duty to maintain an AED on the premises, finding the foreseeability and burden factors of the Rowland test weighed heavily against imposing such a duty.  The same factors weigh against imposing such a duty on a landlord whose relationship with its tenant’s patrons is even more attenuated.  Finally, the landlord owes no duty to assure that the tenant complies with the law by maintaining an AED.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4 (Willhite, Acting P.J.); April 11, 2018; 2018 WL 1736790