Plaintiff leased greenhouses from defendant. Defendant did not disclose that the greenhouses contained asbestos and other hazardous substances. The jury awarded plaintiff damages on theories of negligence and premises liability. This decision holds that there was substantial evidence to support the verdicts despite the lease’s indemnification and limitation of liability clauses. The indemnification clause did not apply if the landlord was grossly negligent. The trial court did instruct the jury that plaintiff could not recover damages unless the defendant was guilty of gross negligence, but there was no special verdict on gross negligence, a failure that the decision holds against the defendant. There was evidence of gross negligence in the defendant’s knowing of the presence of asbestos in the building and air but saying nothing to plaintiff about it. The limitation of liability clause was unenforceable under Civ. Code 1668 insofar as it was asserted to bar liability based on violation of statutes–in this case, Health & Safety Code 25359.7 which requires commercial landlords to warn potential lessees of the known or suspected existence of hazardous substances on the premises and 25915 et seq. which require warnings when repair or maintenance activities give rise to a risk of exposure to asbestos. Here, the jury had to have found violations of these statutes to support the negligence per se theory which was the only basis on which plaintiff’s negligence claim rested.