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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1172788/becker-v-irm-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,461 chars

It is now settled that a landlord generally owes a tenant a duty of reasonable care in maintaining the rented premises in a safe condition. (Evans v. Thomason, supra, 72 Cal. App.3d 978, 985; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 *473 Cal. App.3d 948, 955 [128 Cal. Rptr. 69]; Brennan v. Cockrell Investments, Inc. (1973) 35 Cal. App.3d 796, 800-801 [111 Cal. Rptr. 122].) In Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 903, 924 [162 Cal. Rptr. 194], the court explained: "In the typical rental situation involving a dwelling house, the foreseeability of harm to a tenant from the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a habitable condition is obvious; the degree of certainty that the tenant suffered injury and the closeness of the connection between the landlord's conduct and the injury is readily ascertainable by proof in each case; the moral blame attached to the landlord's conduct in not complying with the habitability requirements articulated in the Civil Code and the policy of preventing future harm are present. Nor can we say that the imposition of a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach would unduly extend a landlord's burden insofar as the availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. In short, we believe that under the policy standards articulated in Rowland, a due regard for human safety and health compels the imposition on a landlord of a duty of due care in the maintenance of the premises."

Other Sections in This Document (238)

Full Text