LL responsible for torts & IWH

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
RR320
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:07 pm

LL responsible for torts & IWH

Postby RR320 » Wed May 09, 2012 11:06 pm

Is a LL responsible for torts committed by a 3rd party ( someone breaks in and injures a tenant)? Also, lets say there is slime in the pool area of an apartment building, can a tenant bring an action of implied warranty of habitability or is the IHW only applied to the actual apartment?

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: LL responsible for torts & IWH

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Wed May 09, 2012 11:56 pm

IWH applies to essential facilities. A common area pool is not essential, so IWH won't apply. Also, IWH is found in the lease, so I would presume that means it is limited to the actual apartment (but maybe a lease would say otherwise?).

Your first question sounds like a torts question, not property. Don't remember torts from last semester at the moment, as I'm studying for my property final tomorrow...

User avatar
OklahomasOK
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: LL responsible for torts & IWH

Postby OklahomasOK » Thu May 10, 2012 3:18 pm

Your first question is a bit more tort-sy and depends on the list of issues dealing with owners and occupiers of land. If the LL knew about the crime in the vicinity of the complex he owns and failed to have a security guard or take "reasonable" precautions to prevent crime, he could be held liable. It would probably be even more so if the tort was committed in a common area not under any one tenant's control.

Pagelsdorf pretty much says LL must exercise "reasonable care" in the maintenance of their property. So was the risk of an intentional tort foreseeable? Was the security unreasonably shitty?

Hope that helps.

User avatar
TTTLS
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:09 am

Re: LL responsible for torts & IWH

Postby TTTLS » Fri May 11, 2012 1:36 pm

OklahomasOK wrote:Pagelsdorf pretty much says LL must exercise "reasonable care" in the maintenance of their property. So was the risk of an intentional tort foreseeable? Was the security unreasonably shitty?
Just looked Pagelsdorf case up. Solid. Why wasn't it ever assigned reading for me?

OP, I'm at work right now and can't concentrate on this right now, but I'll throw you some cases to put you in the right direction.
Rowland v. Christian, 443 P.2d 561 (Cal. 1968).
Lopez v. Baca, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 281 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2002).
Isaacs v. Huntington Meml. Hosp., 695 P.2d 653 (Cal. 1985).

Edit: Crap finals are over.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eldon Tyrell, mke88, Trumpet101 and 3 guests