Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)

Citation: Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
Parent Document: Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2003-02-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4934783/lian-v-stalick/ ↗

Full Text

693 chars

Comment (a) in the Restatement explains that “[a]n overriding requirement of the rule of this section is that there be a dangerous condition on the leased property, the existence of which is in violation of either an implied warranty of habitability or a duty created by statute or *595administrative regulation.” Restatement, supra. The fact that the tenant has notice of the dangerous condition does not mean that section 17.6 is inapplicable. Restatement, supra, cmt. b. In contrast, a landlord is subject to liability under section 17.6 only for those conditions he is aware of or for those conditions he could have known about in the exercise of ordinary care. Restatement, supra, cmt. c.

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text