Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 1942

Citation
Section 1942 (1)
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

947 chars
(1) In the present case, the trial court instructed the jury that a tenant may not defend an unlawful detainer action upon the basis of a landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability unless "[t]he defective condition was unknown to the tenant at the time of the occupancy of his or her apartment." However, the fact that a tenant was or was not aware of specific defects is not determinative of the duty of a landlord to maintain premises which are habitable. The same reasons which imply the existence of the warranty of habitability — the inequality of bargaining power, the shortage of housing, and the impracticability of imposing upon tenants a duty of inspection — also compel the conclusion that a tenant's lack of knowledge of defects is not a prerequisite to the landlord's breach of the warranty. (See Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 624-625.)[5] Therefore, the trial court erred in giving this instruction.