Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)

Citation: Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)
Parent Document: Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2003-09-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4935965/tucker-v-hayford/ ↗

Full Text

820 chars

In Brown the landlord had notice of the tenant’s problem (a high door sill). The holding in Brown turned on the nature of the claimed defect, not notice. The contract required the landlord to keep the common areas “reasonably clean and safe from defects increasing the hazards of fire or accident.” Id. So, the court reasoned, the landlord was obligated to do something about the door sill only if it was unsafe. All agreed the door sill was inconvenient for the tenants, but nobody — not the landlord, the tenants, nor a state agent who inspected the premises for a residential adult care facility license — considered it unsafe. Id. at 802-03, 805. The court ultimately held that the landlord would not be liable under the contract’s safety provision because the door sill was not then unreasonably unsafe. Id. at 805.

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text