Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)

Citation: Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)
Parent Document: Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2013-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4954189/martini-v-post/ ↗

Full Text

1,568 chars

¶42 Here, like the plaintiff in Lian I who notified her landlord of the decrepit stairs, Martini notified Post of the defective windows in the northeast bedroom on several occasions and gave Post permission to enter the home to repair them. Yet, Post never made the requested repairs. Additionally, and unlike the plaintiff in Pruitt who failed to cite Washington authority for applying section 17.6 to *171nontenants, Martini offered persuasive Washington authority that section 17.6 should apply to injuries suffered by a tenant due to a landlord’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability or a breach of a duty specified by statute or regulation. See Lian 1,106 Wn. App. 811. Martini also argued that Post breached his duties under RCW 59.18.060(1) and (5) and Tacoma Municipal Code section 2.01.070.7 He contended that when a tenant alerts a landlord to a defective condition, the landlord has a duty to remedy the condition as required by the implied warranty of habitability and by his statutory duties. Policy considerations also support application of section 17.6 to the landlord-tenant relationship. As Martini argues, the rule in section 17.6 is based on the assumption that a duty created by a statute or regulation “represents a legislative determination of the standard of conduct required of the landlord” and that tort liability of the landlord for breaching his duty “tends to increase the likelihood that the will of the legislature as expressed in the statute or regulation will be effectuated.” Restatement (Second) of Property § 17.6 cmt. a.

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text