Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)

Citation: Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Parent Document: Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2005-10-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1472683/douglas-v-kriegsfeld-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,544 chars

. According to the majority, the extended duration of the unsanitary and unhealthy conditions was the fault of the landlord for not replying to the essentially content-less February 20 letter from counsel for the tenant. See Douglas I, 849 A.2d at 998-99 (dissenting opinion) (quoting that letter in its entirety). The majority also attributes the delay in reme*1156dying the Housing Code violations to the "normal requirements of judicial process that landlords risk having to accept from the business they have chosen to pursue.” In other words, say my colleagues in the majority, "tough, you are a landlord, you chose your own way of making a living, and you should expect to have to tolerate the filth, rodents and stench for a long period of time without whining about it!” But the majority's "blame the landlord” approach notwithstanding, the tenant's attorney could not have settled the case even if Kriegsfeld's counsel had responded to the February 20 letter; no settlement proposed by opposing counsel can be achieved unless the client agrees to it, and Ms. Douglas was nowhere to be found! Moreover, the "normal requirements of the judicial process” often take a very long time, and if a tenant claiming to be suffering from alcoholism and a mood disorder is not deemed responsible for the effect on others of her violations of the lease and the housing code, then there is in effect no prompt protection for such a tenant’s landlord and fellow-residents, even if, as in this case, the conditions imperil their health and well-being.

Other Sections in This Document (533)

Full Text