Dangerous Condition
Case Law

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT: Does a landlord have a duty to disclose obvious defects that are readily apparent, especially where there is an equal opportunity for observation on the part of the landlord and the tenant.

FACTS: Tenant trips over two-inch pole in yard then claims that the pole was an undisclosed dangerous condition

Pate and her husband leased a mobile home from the Riverbend Mobile Home Village Inc. (landlord). The lease required the Pates to maintain the mobile home and the yard.

Pate was playing with her children in the front yard one day when she tripped over an iron pole that protruded an inch or two above the ground. The pole was the base of a clothesline the landlord removed before the Pates rented the property.

Pate sued her landlord, claiming it was liable for her injuries because it had a duty to disclose the hidden, unsafe condition on the premises.

Under state law, landlords generally weren't liable to tenants of others for defective conditions that existed at the time of the lease. There was an exception, though, for undisclosed dangerous conditions known to the landlord but not to the tenant.

The landlord asked the court for judgment without a trial. It admitted the pole was on the premises when the Pates took possession of the property, but claimed the pole wasn't a defect and, in any case, could have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection by the Pates. The landlord gave the court a statement of the condition of the property completed by Pate's husband, which indicated that the condition of the yard was "OK."

Pate claimed neither she nor her husband knew about the pole before her injury. She argued that whether the pipe was an undisclosed, dangerous condition and was unknown to them was a question of fact that had to be answered by a jury.

DECISION: The court awarded for the landlord, finding the pole didn't present an unsafe condition. The court said that even if it did, pictures of the property showed the pole was clearly visible so Pate should have seen it.

Pate appealed.

DECISION: Affirmed.

Under state law, landlords generally weren't liable for defective conditions that existed at the time the lease was signed. Contrary to Pate's argument, the exception for undisclosed dangerous conditions known to the landlord but not the tenant didn't apply.

The exception applied only if the landlord knew about a dangerous condition that posed an unreasonable risk of causing injury, and the tenant neither knew nor should have known about the condition. The Pates either knew or should have known about the pole before Pate's accident, so the landlord owed them no duty. Pictures showed the pole was clearly visible and the Pates had lived on the property for more than six months, so they should have known about the pole before the accident. Pate's husband signed an inventory and conditions report that showed the condition of the yard was "OK." Moreover, the Pates, not the landlord - had a duty to maintain the premises, including the yard. see also: Borders v. Roseberry, 532

P.2d 1366 (1975).

Durham v. Cessna Aircraft Company, 945 R 2d 8 (199 7).