Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 1941

Citation
Section 1941
Parent Document
Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1981-02-13

Other Sections in This Document (192)

Full Text

968 chars
The trial court defined the implied warranty of habitability in the language used in Green, distinguishing between “‘bare living requirements’” on the one hand and “‘“amenities’”” and “aesthetically pleasing condition” on the other. The Green illustrations were also included.6 (10 Cal.3d at p. 637.) Appellants complain of the court’s rejection of lengthy instruction quoting the language of the eight subdivisions of Civil Code section 1941.1 and adding a number of other requirements to define habitable premises. The offered instruction among other *68things would require the landlord to keep clean every room and bathroom in the apartment house. Obviously, the implied warranty of habitability does not require the landlord to provide maid service to every tenant to clean up his room and bathroom. The trial court was not required to correct the offered instruction. (Shaw v. Pacific Greyhound Lines (1958) 50 Cal.2d 153, 158 [323 P.2d 391].) D. Prior Condition