Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

and, if so, (2) what portion, if any or all, of the defendant's obligation to pay rent is

relieved by the landlord's total or partial breach of his implied warranty of habitability."

Id. at 34. A warranty's applicability is a mixed question of law and fact. Burbo v. Harlev

C. Douglass, Inc., 125 Wn. App. 684, 694, 106 P.3d 258 (2005). Conditions that

"present a substantial risk of future danger" will give rise to a claim for breach of

warranty of habitability. Westlake View Condo. Ass'n. v. Sixth Ave. View Partners, LLC,

146 Wn. App. 760, 771, 193 P.3d 161 (2008).

The record contains ample evidence of conditions in the Unit that would cause a

fair-minded, rational person to find a substantial risk of future danger. As long as

substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings, "a reviewing court will not

substitute its judgment for that of the trial court even though it may have resolved a

factual dispute differently." Sunnvside, 149 Wn.2d at 879-80. Pham misstates the

evidence when he claims that Bradrick testified that "the habitability issues were not so

egregious as to warrant an order of condemnation, eviction or displacement, even

though he had authority to issue such orders." Reply Brief at 11. Bradrick testified that
he didn't consider the sewer leak to be "egregious to the point where I was going to get
             
No. 70956-9-1/10

excited and create an emergency on it or anything, but I did want it to be addressed

relatively quickly." VRP at 115. He further testified that "[i]f I went back to inspect today,

and the sewage had not been rectified, I would immediately put out an emergency

order, yes." VRP at 132. The Tenants also testified about the sewage leak and smell