47
to its lease agreement, to protect itself against loss. The law does not extend liability to
those providing design or construction services to others in 7WTC.
Accordingly, I hold that the Construction and Contractor Defendants do
not owe a duty of care to Con Edison. These defendants' motions to dismiss are granted,
and the claims of Con Edison's subrogated plaintiffs against them are dismissed.
3. The Owning and Managing Defendants
The Owning and Managing Defendants, 7 World Trade Company, L.P.
and Silverstein Properties, Inc., are alleged to have erected, operated, and managed
7WTC, and thus fall squarely into the category of defendants contemplated by 532
Madison to owe a duty of care to plaintiff. Plaintiffs claim also that the Owning and
Managing Defendants are negligent per se.
As a general rule, in the absence of a special relationship between the
parties, no duty is owed to the public at large or to those outside the class of people
entitled to expect the actor's due care to them. Waters, 505 N.E.2d at 924. Where such a
special relationship does exist, a duty of care may be imposed upon the defendant. Id.
Generally, landowners, or persons or entities exercising control over property, owe a duty
to persons on their property to protect them from conditions on the property for they are
in the best position to protect against risks inhering in the condition of the property. See
Kreindler, supra, at § 12.2. As the entities charged with the management and operation
of 7WTC, or succeeding to such entities, the Owning and Managing Defendants clearly
exercised control over the design, construction, maintenance and operation of 7WTC, and
potentially owe a duty of care to those persons entitled to expect such due care.
