§ 4458

Citation: § 4458
Parent Document: Timothy Terry and Penny Terry v. William O'Brien and Susan Cain O'Brien, 2015 VT 132 (2015)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2015-10-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3149019/timothy-terry-and-penny-terry-v... ↗

Full Text

1,238 chars

2
           Tenants do not contend, however, that landlords knew, or even that they should have
known, of the electrical problems that led to the 2008 fire. Moreover, they argue only that: (1)
the trial court’s determination, “as a matter of law, that statutory notice does not apply to latent
defects . . . . comports with Willard”; and (2) the habitability statute invokes strict liability. We
reject both arguments above. They do not argue that the statutory (or, for that matter, common
law) warranty of habitability should apply in situations where a landlord who did not receive
actual notice of a habitability defect should have known of the defect. Cf. Restatement (Second)
of Property, Landlord & Tenant § 5.1 cmt. d (stating that landlord has reasonable time to remedy
unsuitable condition of premises before tenant’s entry if landlord can establish that he or she
“was unaware of, and with due diligence could not have known of, the condition which would
otherwise entitle the tenant” to terminate lease or obtain equitable and legal relief). Thus, that
issue is not before us.
                                                 11
personal injuries covered by tort law. Landlords’ argument appears to be aimed at the nature of

Other Sections in This Document (475)

Full Text