Duncan v. Madison Square Associates, Ltd.
Annotate this CaseStenum Hospital, Sue Hart, James Rider, Malte Peterson, Dr. Jens Dannenberg, Dr. Karl Ritter-Lang, Dr. Heiner Beese, and Dr. Hans-Georg Zechel, third-party defendants in an action pending in the Madison Circuit Court (collectively "the hospital parties"), petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to vacate its order that denied their motion to dismiss the third-party complaint filed against them by Madison Square Associates, Ltd. (Madison Square), ERMC II, L.P., CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., and CBL & Associates Management, Inc. (collectively "the mall parties"), and to enter an order dismissing the third-party complaint. In 2007, Elizabeth Duncan slipped and fell on a wet tile floor at Madison Square Mall. According to her second amended complaint, Ms. Duncan sustained a fracture to her left patella and "aggravated and/or sustained injuries to her spine, including her neck and back." She became partially paralyzed after she underwent disk-replacement surgery at Stenum, which is located in Germany. Ms. Duncan and her husband, John, subsequently sued the mall parties. Ms. Duncan alleged claims of negligence and wantonness resulting in the injuries she suffered when she fell; her husband alleged a claim of loss of consortium. The hospital parties argued that the dispositive issue presented by their petition for the writ of mandamus was whether the mall parties had standing to assert the claims made in the third-party complaint. The hospital parties maintained that the mall parties do not have standing; therefore, the hospital parties argued, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted the petition, and directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the hospital parties' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court concluded the mall parties lacked standing to assert the claims they asserted against the hospital parties in the third-party complaint.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.