Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)

Citation
Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Parent Document
Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1985-04-29

Other Sections in This Document (238)

Full Text

1,319 chars
*487I would hold that a subsequent purchaser of property who has not installed, altered or created the item or condition which is claimed to be defective, and who has no actual or constructive knowledge of any defect therein, should not be held strictly liable. If the landlord knows or should know of the defect, then he has a duty to take appropriate action to correct or warn of the problem. However, where the landlord has no continuing relationship with the chain of marketing leading back to the manufacturer of the defective product, and thus has no way of influencing the production or design of the product or of adjusting potential costs of the manufacturer’s enterprise or others in the business of marketing the item at issue, imposition of strict liability is inappropriate. The only rationales supporting such responsibility are ease of proof for the injured party and “distributing” the risk of damages to the landlord. The costs of such an extension of liability to those without expertise or continuing relationships for the multiple products and parts for which they may now bear responsibility will entail a significant shift in how our tort system has heretofore operated. It amounts, in effect, to insurance for tenants,6 because it does nothing to aid in the goals of deterrence or product safety.