Daily Development for Friday, August 17,
2007
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC
School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell
Sanders
Peper Martin
Kansas City,
Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
LANDLORD/TENANT; RESIDENTIAL; IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILLITY; TORT CLAIMS: Virginia decides that there is no tort remedy for breaches\ of implied warranty as defined in Virginia version of the Uniform Residential Landlord/Tenant Act.
Isbell v. Commercial Investment Assoc. Inc., 644 SE 2d 72 (Va. 2007)
Tenant allegedly suffered injuries as a consequence of stairs within her living unit that were in poor repair. Tenant sued landlord in tort for personal injuries, alleging that the landlord had a duty to maintain the premises in good repair during the term of the tenancy, and that the landlords failure to so maintain the premises led to the injury.
As the court noted, the landlord has no duty at common law to maintain a premises in good repair after letting. But the tenant alleged that this duty arose as a consequence of Virginias adoption of the Uniform Residential Landlord/Tenant Act. This Act imposes on the landlord many responsibilities with respect to maintenance of the premises - a statutory version of the common law Cimplied warranty of habitability adopted in some other states.
The court stated that there is nothing in the Virginia legislation expressly giving a tort remedy for personal injuries as a consequence of a landlords failure to maintain a residential premises. It concluded that there was no basis for inferring an intent on the part of the legislature that such a remedy ought to exist.
Particularly at issue were the provisions of Virginia Code Sec. 55-248.40, which provides that damages were available in connection with an award of an injunction. Tenant argued that the statutory recognition of damages here demonstrated that the legislature did see fit to permit personal injury damages a s a consequence of breaches of the implied warranty. The court instead read the section to permit only contractual damages for breach of the implied contract remedies made available to the tenant under the Act. Thus, if the premises are in disrepair, the tenant can obtain damages for breach of contract for an unsatisfactory premises, but cannot obtain personal injury damages. The court noted also that the tenant in this case had not sought an injunction anyway, since it had already moved out.
Comment 1: Friedman on Leases (Randolph edition) discusses the issue in Section 10:1.6. The editor acknowledges that the editing in that section is unsatisfactory and hell clean it up in the next supplement, due out around Thanksgiving. But the editor also has included at the end of chapter 10 in Friedman a state by state analysis on various implied warranty issues, including the availability of tort damages. Again, this appendix will be reworked as a consequence of this decision and a few others.
Comment 2: The implied warranty of habitability is a non-waivable duty arising as a consequence of a landlord entering into a landlord-tenant relationship. The reasons for refashioning this relationship go beyond ordinary tort theory, and it is no surprising that courts would follow to their logical end the logical ramifications of the duty established under the implied warranty.
Comment 3: The case also is significant because the Uniform LL/T Act has been enacted in many states - as many as 30, the editor believes, and consequently the impact of this construction of the Act is significant. In states where the courts had already changed the common law to impose an implied warranty duty on landlord, a court might be more likely to find in such duty a tort duty as well.
Items reported here and in the ABA
publications
are for general information purposes only
and
should not be relied upon in the course
of
representation or in the forming of decisions
in
legal matters. The same is
true of
all
commentary provided by
contributors to the
DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and
opinions
expressed
are the sole responsibility
of the
DIRT editor
and are in no sense the
publication
of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
a
source that is readily accessible
by members
of
the general public, and should
take that
fact
into account in evaluating
confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for
serious
real estate professionals. Message volume
varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15
messages per
work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work
day.
To
subscribe, send the
message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the
message
signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the
message
Help to the listserv
address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage
that includes
not only
commercial and general real
estate
matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate
brokers
generally find
this service more
valuable, it
is named BrokerDIRT. But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others
interested in
the
residential market will want to
subscribe
to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe
to DIRT,
as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT
traffic in
addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send
the
message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the
address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Association
Section on Real Property,
Probate
& Trust Law and
the University of
Missouri,
Kansas City, School
of Law.
Daily
Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A.
Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of
Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission
for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided
that
no charge is imposed for such
distribution
and
that appropriate credit is given
to
Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its
sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D=
http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
-----
To be removed from this mailing list, please go to
<https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D=
http://listserv.umkc.edu/listserv/wa.exe?SUBED1=3DBROKERDIRT%26A=3D1&=
gt;
or send an email message to the address
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu,
with the
text
SIGNOFF BROKERDIRT in the body of the message. Problems
or questions should be directed to
manager@listserv.umkc.edu.
prandolph@UMKC.EDU