Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)

Citation: Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Parent Document: Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2001-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4931615/lian-v-stalick/ ↗

Full Text

1,016 chars

Degel, which involved a natural body of water *821adjacent to a mobile home park, was decided in a common-area type of context. Id. at 46-47. But the underlying common law rule on which Degel is founded, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) (1965), in appropriate circumstances, applies to portions of the premises under the control of a residential tenant. See Anglin v. Oros, 257 Ill. App. 3d 213, 628 N.E.2d 873, 876 (1993) (finding no duty of care where landlord did not know of defective storm door and would not have anticipated harm to residential tenant’s daughter). The determinative issue is not so much the location of the defect but whether the dangerous defect was so obvious that the landlord should have anticipated the harm even though the tenant knew of the defective condition. Id. at 877. Consequently, a duty of care would exist “if the landlord should have anticipated the harm despite the tenant’s knowledge of the danger or despite the obvious nature of the danger.” Degel, 129 Wn.2d at 50.

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text