Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (2001)

Citation: Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (2001)
Parent Document: Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2001-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2587519/lian-v-stalick/ ↗

Full Text

1,093 chars

Degel, which involved a natural body of water adjacent to a mobile home park, was decided in a common-area type of context. Id. at 46-47, 914 P.2d 728. 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, 195 Ill.Dec. 409, 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., 195 Ill.Dec. 409, 628 N.E.2d 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 *474 the danger." Degel, 129 Wash.2d at 50, 914 P.2d 728.

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text