Calder v. Anderson, 911 P.2d 1157 (1996)

Citation: Calder v. Anderson, 911 P.2d 1157 (1996)
Parent Document: Calder v. Anderson, 911 P.2d 1157 (1996)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 1996-02-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/884076/calder-v-anderson/ ↗

Full Text

1,230 chars

Our rejection of the general rule of landlord immunity does not make landlords liable as insurers.6 [6We do not accept the Newtons’ argument that a rule of strict liability should govern this case.] Their duty is to use reasonable care to discover and remedy conditions which present an unreasonable risk of harm under the circumstances. Nor does our ruling mean that questions as to whether a dangerous condition existed in an area occupied solely by the tenant or in a common area, or whether the condition was apparent or hidden, are irrelevant. These are circumstances which must be accounted for in customary negligence analysis. They may pertain to the reasonableness of the landlord’s or the tenant’s conduct and to the foreseeability and magnitude of the risk. In particular, a landlord ordinarily gives up the right to enter premises under the exclusive control of the tenant without the tenant’s permission. The landlord’s ability to inspect or repair tenant areas is therefore limited. In such cases “a landlord should not be liable in negligence unless he knew or reasonably should have known of the defect and had a reasonable opportunity to repair it.” Young v. Garwacki, 380 Mass. 162, 402 N.E.2d 1045, 1050 (1980).

Other Sections in This Document (335)

Full Text