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

2,071 chars
¶ 48. Before the adoption of the implied warranty of habitability in residential rental agreements, the common law recognized the harshness of the caveat lessee doctrine with respect to latent defects known to the landlord. R. Schoshinski, American Law of Landlord and Tenant § 3:12 (1980). An exception to the doctrine emerged that made a landlord liable for latent defects that the landlord knew about at the time of the tenant's entry, but failed to disclose to the tenant. Id.; 1 H. Tiffany, The Law of Landlord and Tenant § 86, at 562 (1910); 1 J. Taylor, The American Law of Landlord and Tenant § 382, at 482 (9th ed. 1904). The landlord's liability arose from his silence about the latent defect because the landlord owed no duty to repair the premise under the common law. Maywood v. Logan, 78 Mich. 135, 43 N.W. 1052, 1053 (1889); Steefel v. Rothschild, 179 N.Y. 273, 72 N.E. 112, 114 (1904); Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash.App. 246, 75 P.3d 980, 984 (2003); see also Schoshinski, supra, § 3:12, at 111 (discussing various remedies for landlord's nondisclosure of dangerous and known latent defect the tenant is not likely to discover). For example, a landlord's failure to disclose water contamination to his tenants stated a common-law cause of action under this theory in a Washington case. Tucker, 75 P.3d at 984. In that case, the landlord was aware of the water contamination and the need to test the water system periodically. The tenants were unaware of the contamination, and they later became ill from it after consuming the water. The Tucker court explained that, although the common law did not require the landlord to discover or repair obscure defects existing when the tenant takes possession, the landlord is liable for not disclosing "`known dangers which are not likely to be discovered by the tenant.'" Id. (quoting Aspon v. Loomis, 62 Wash.App. 818, 816 P.2d 751, 756 (1991)). The court sent the case back for trial on the common-law failure-to-disclose claim, as well as other claims, including a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.