George Washington University v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43 (1983)

Citation: George Washington University v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43 (1983)
Parent Document: George Washington University v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43 (1983)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1983-02-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2298306/george-washington-university-v-... ↗

Full Text

1,346 chars

Second, the valve apparatus causing the flood was exclusively in the landlord’s control.8 “Exclusive control” is rigid terminology for what is actually a flexible concept. W. Peosser, supra at 220. It does not necessarily mean that the defendant must be *56the only one with access to the instrumentality. See Washington Sheraton Corp., supra, 239 A.2d at 622 (res ipsa loquitur can be invoked in “joint control” cases “where the instrumentality causing injury is controlled ... by a single defendant and a third party”). Moreover, consistent with “exclusive control” is the possibility of an intervening cause that would preclude landlord liability. The point is, the landlord here had sole responsibility for system-wide maintenance, and thus in that significant sense had exclusive control, of the plumbing system. See, e.g., Bankers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Friedlander, 262 A.2d 606, 607 (D.C.1970); Glaude v. Nash, 46 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C.1946). It follows that, when pressure builds up in a valve over which the landlord has exclusive control and a pipe bursts causing damage in one or more apartments, it is reasonable to infer that the landlord’s negligence caused the accident, absent a showing by the landlord that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it could not have known about the defect and responded in time to prevent the damage.9

Other Sections in This Document (206)

Full Text