Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)

Citation
Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)
Parent Document
Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2005-08-05

Other Sections in This Document (143)

Full Text

868 chars
¶ 47. There is a much more obvious reason why the Legislature would construct a warranty-of-habitability scheme without distinguishing between latent and patent defects, and that reason involves an appropriate interaction between the statute and the common law. In this case, plaintiffs seek damages for the anguish they have suffered since discovering that, without any prior warning, they exposed themselves and their children to a dangerous chemical whose Mure health effects are unknown. Plaintiffs did not need either a common-law or statutory warranty of habitability to bring this claim. Defendants’ failure to disclose the water contamination is actionable under a long-recognized exception to the caveat lessee doctrine. Thus, plaMiffs’ inability to recover is created not by the notice provisions of the RRAA, but instead by their choice of liability theory.