Najam, J.
Statement of the Case
Kaitlyn Schneider appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Paragon Realty, LLC (“Paragon”) on Schneider’s complaint alleging that, as a result of the negligence of Paragon and other defendants, Schneider sustained personal injuries. Schneider presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment in favor of Paragon.
We affirm.
….
On October 19, 2011, Schneider consumed five vodka drinks at her home between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., when her friend Benjamin Burns picked her up in his car and drove her to Bubbaz Bar & Grill (“Bubbaz”) in Camby. Bubbaz is located in a strip mall owned by Heartland Landing II, LLC (“Heartland”). While at Bubbaz, Schneider consumed three beers and three shots of whiskey, and Burns also consumed alcoholic beverages. At approximately 2:00 a.m. on October 20, Schneider and Burns left Bubbaz in Burns’ vehicle with Burns driving. At approximately 2:30 a.m., Burns lost control of his car and crashed into a ditch. A chemical test performed on Burns’ blood at 4:10 a.m. that morning indicated that his blood alcohol content was .10. Schneider sustained serious injuries as a result of the crash, and she is now a paraplegic.
….
This is an unusual premises liability case in that Paragon is not a “landowner” but a property management company hired by Heartland, which is the landowner…..
….
In particular, under the property management agreement with Heartland, Paragon agreed in relevant part “to perform certain administrative services,” including maintaining “the Property and common areas thereof including . . . parking lots[.]” Appellant’s App. at 628. Contrary to Schneider’s assertion on appeal, there is no designated evidence showing that Paragon had a duty or had assumed a duty4 to “police” the parking lot or any obligation to invitees beyond physical maintenance of the property. Paragon owed no duty of care to Schneider related to the allegations of negligence she asserts in her complaint. [Footnote omitted.] Under the circumstances here, we hold, as a matter of law, that Paragon did not owe Schneider a duty to protect her from the dangers associated with getting in a car with an intoxicated driver. The trial court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of Paragon. [Footnote omitted.]
Conclusion
Considering the designated evidence on summary judgment, none of Schneider’s contentions support a claim against Paragon. As Heartland’s property manager, Paragon was responsible for physical maintenance and administrative duties, such as collecting rents. While Schneider was Paragon’s invitee with respect to the physical integrity of the common areas outside of Bubbaz, there was no contractual or other relationship between the parties with respect to the allegations against Paragon set out in her complaint. Neither as a matter of law nor as a matter of fact did Paragon exercise control over, or have any responsibility for, the manner in which Heartland’s tenants conducted their businesses. The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Paragon.
Affirmed. Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.