Section 669
- Citation
- Section 669
- Parent Document
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1980-02-05
Other Sections in This Document (161)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
- Section 669
Full Text
1,783 charsWe do not write upon a clean slate in deciding whether public policy today calls for an exception to the liability principle articulated in section 1714 insofar as the landlord-tenant relationship; other courts and legal commentators have paved the way. In Brennan v. Cockrell Investments, Inc. (1973) 35 Cal. App.3d 796 [111 Cal. Rptr. 122], a tenant sued his landlord for injuries sustained when the back stairway railing broke and plaintiff fell. The trial judge refused an instruction based on Rowland v. Christian and the appellate court reversed for failure to give the instruction. Brennan noted the effect of Civil Code section 1714 and the trend the law is now taking toward imposing on owners and occupiers of premises a single duty of reasonable care in all circumstances (35 Cal. App.3d at pp. 801-802). Mr. Witkin observes and quotes from Brennan as follows: "The contention that a landlord should not be subject to the new theory of liability because he is not in possession and control of the land is unsound. `[I]t is impossible to perceive any legitimate public interest that would be promoted by the creation of a landlord immunity exception to the code provision. That a landlord *918 must act toward his tenant as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury, the probable seriousness of such injury, the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk, and his degree of control over the risk-creating defect, seems a sound proposition and one that expresses well the principles of justice and reasonableness upon which the law of torts is based. It is no part of fairness and rationality to transform possession and control from mere factors bearing on negligence into barriers to consideration of that issue.' (35 C.A.3d 801.)