Is there any case law supporting the argument that a party has no right to maintain or repair their property?

The second argument of defendants is equally untenable. In the case of Biondini v. Amship Corp., 81 Cal.App.2d 751, 185 P.2d 94, similar contentions were made. There the plaintiff, a business invitee, brought an action against several defendants for personal injuries. The trial court granted defendants' motion for a nonsuit and plaintiff appealed. In reversing the orders of nonsuit the reviewing court held that the lack of ownership or legal right to maintain or repair property, while important, is not conclusive; that one might expressly or impliedly adopt the property of another and invite others to use it, and if they do, the invitor owes to such invitee a duty to exercise reasonable care to see that the property is safe. The court then concluded that whether or not they had done so was a question for the jury. The rule therein expressed is equally applicable to the facts in the present case.