Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)

Citation
Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)
Parent Document
Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1995-08-21

Other Sections in This Document (225)

Full Text

765 chars
Although, as noted above, nearly all states have recognized an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases, only California (by judicial decision) and Louisiana (by statute) hold landlords strictly liable for injuries to tenants caused by defects in the premises. One commentator has explained this trend as follows: “Gradually, . . . courts are realizing that the implied warranty is actually a covenant rather than a warranty, which means that breaches need not give rise to excessive tort liability. The landlord’s repair covenant is (or at least should be) breached only if the landlord fails to fix a problem within a reasonable period after notice. It is the landlord’s inaction —the landlord’s negligence—that gives rise to liability.” (Freyfogle,