Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)

Citation: Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
Parent Document: Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1980-02-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2134128/stoiber-v-honeychuck/ ↗

Full Text

1,078 chars

Neither side has cited any controlling authority on the question of whether a rental agent managing the premises for the owner has a duty towards the tenant by virtue of that relationship. J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory, supra, 24 Cal. 3d 799, sets forth the criteria to be considered by courts in determining whether a defendant stands in such a position to a plaintiff that he owes him an affirmative duty. “... (1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, (2) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, (5) the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct and (6) the policy of preventing future harm.” (Id., at p. 804.) The J’Aire court observed that in formulating duties, the Supreme Court “has repeatedly eschewed overly rigid common law formulations of duty in favor of allowing compensation for foreseeable injuries caused by a defendant’s want of ordinary care.” (Id., at p. 805.)

Other Sections in This Document (161)

Full Text