Before 1985, if tenants suffered injuries in the leased properties, the landlords were liable only if the tenants established that the landlords had been negligent. This generally required the tenants to show that the landlords were at fault for the injuries, for example, by failing to adequately inspect and maintain the rental properties, which conduct caused the injuries.
In 1985, the California Supreme Court, under former Chief Justice Rose Bird, decided the case of Becker v. IRM Corp. which held that landlords could be held "strictly liable" for injuries suffered by their tenants due to defective products in their apartments, regardless whether the landlords were negligent ("at fault") for the injuries.
The Becker decision was an expansion of a legal doctrine known as "strict products liability," under which persons injured by defective products may, in certain circumstances, bring suit without regard to fault against the manufacturers and retailers of the products.
In Becker, the Rose Bird court drastically changed the established rules governing landlords' liability for injuries caused by defective products in leased properties. Becker justified its expansion of landlords' liability by reasoning that an apartment itself should be considered as a "product" which landlords place into the stream of commerce, much like new products made and sold by manufacturers and retailers.
Two Justices on the Rose Bird court -Malcolm Lucas and Stanley Mosk -dissented in Becker and argued against holding landlords responsible under the theory of strict liability.
Since 1985, the Becker decision has been strongly criticized by many legal commentators, and no other state adopted it as law. In fact, the Hawaii Supreme Court expressly rejected Becker, citing with approval the dissenting opinion of Justices Lucas and Mosk.
However, the California Supreme Court has now overruled the Becker decision. On August 21, 1995, the Court, under now-Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, handed down a decision entitled Peterson v. Superior Court in which it ruled that landlords may no longer be held "strictly liable" for injuries sustained by their tenants due to defective products incorporated into the properties.
The accidents which caused injuries to the tenants in the Becker and Peterson cases are substantially identical: a slip and fall by a person using a bathroom shower. Becker involved a tenant of a residential property. Peterson involved a guest in a hotelroom.
When the Peterson case went up on appeal, the Supreme Court had ordered the attorneys for the landlord and for the tenant to brief the question whether Becker should be applied to hotel owners, not whether Becker should be overruled.
The attorney representing the hotel owners, however, directly attacked the Becker decision and argued that it should be overruled as unsound law. As a result, the Court permitted the injured guest's attorney to reply in support of Becker. The hotel owners' attorney's decision was likely a strategic move made because Malcolm Lucas, the former dissenting Justice in Becker, was now Chief Justice, and because the Court has become much more conservative ever since the 1986 elections in which Chief Justice Rose Bird and two other Justices were unseated.
The issue having been briefed, the Court determined that the portion of the Becker decision which imposed strict liability upon landlords should be overruled.
The fact that landlords are not liable under a theory of "strict liability" does not mean they have no liability at all. The Peterson decision merely restores the standards which applied before 1985, that is, that tenants injured by defective products in leased properties must plead and prove that the landlords were negligent and "at fault" for the tenant's injuries.
Furthermore, injured tenants retain the right to bring suit for damages under a strict products liability theory against manufacturers and retailers of defective products which may have been installed in the properties.
Peterson expressly left open the issue whether landlords which participated in the construction of the properties in which tenants or guests sustained injury could be liable under strict liability. In such a situation, strict liability would attach not due to conduct as a landlord but rather due to the landlord's status as a builder who is in the business of constructing ("manufacturing") rental properties.
Notwithstanding that exception, the Peterson decision should be greeted with appreciation by landlords. It represents a significant limitation of landlords' exposure to liability and a restoration of the prior negligence standard in actions for damages brought by tenants injured by defective products in the leased properties, which standard requires a showing of "fault" before landlords' can be held liable in damages.
* * * * *
© BRIGIT S. BARNES & ASSOCIATES, INC.