Defective Step Causes Injury
Tenant falls down stairs after step collapses and
claims someone hid rotten wood
Bergeron v. DeSimone, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District
of Danbury, No. 323603 (1998)
Questions before the court:
Can a tenant accept property as is? Is a defect a breach
of contract? Did the landlord violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by
inducing a tenant to rent property even though he knew there was a hidden defect and the
building violated state and city building codes?
Facts of the case:
A landlord named DeSimone owned a two-family rental
house in Danbury. Conn. A tenant named Bergeron rented the second floor apartment.
Bergeron was injured after falling down the stairs that led to her apartment when a
portion of the top step collapsed.
The tenant sued the landlord for negligence and breach
of her lease. She testified that she examined the step after the accident and found that a
metal strip had been improperly placed across the step. According to the tenant, the
wooden step was rotted underneath the metal strip and it seemed as if someone had put the
strip across the step in a makeshift attempt to conceal the rotten wood. She said she
didn't realize this when she rented the apartment because the strip hid the defect.
The landlord claimed the lease made it clear he had no
contractual obligation to repair the defective step. The lease stated the tenant had
examined the property and was satisfied with its physical condition and the landlord made
no promises to repair or improve the property.
The tenant responded that another lease provision gave
the landlord a duty to repair the step. That provision stated the landlord could enter the
property to provide services or to inspect, repair, improve, or show the property, and
could enter without the tenant's consent in case of emergency.
The landlord asked for judgment without a trial. He
claimed he couldn't be found negligent because the tenant had exclusive possession and
control of the stairway, and he couldn't have breached the lease because it clearly stated
he wasn't responsible for repairs.
DECISION: Judgment denied in part.
The landlord was entitled to judgment on the beach of
contract. However, a trial was needed on the tenant's negligence claim.
No trial was needed on the tenant's breach of
contract claim. The lease stated the tenant had examined the property and was satisfied
with its condition and the landlord had not promised to repair or improve the property.
This clearly showed the landlord didn't have a contractual duty to repair the defective
step. The clause the tenant relied on merely gave the landlord the right to enter the
property after giving the tenant reasonable notice.
However, the court ruled that a trial was needed to
determine whether the landlord's negligence caused the tenant's injury. Ordinarily,
tenants accepted the premises as they found them and assumed the risk of any defective
conditions that were within the area under their exclusive possession and control. This
rule, however, didn't apply to defects existing at the beginning of the tenancy that were
known to the landlord, but couldn't be discovered by a tenant upon a reasonable
inspection. Here, the tenant claimed the step was defective when she moved in, but she
didn't notice the rotten wood because someone had concealed it under a metal strip. This
was enough to entitle the tenant to a trial to determine whether the exception for
undiscoverable defects applied.
The court found the tenant was entitled to a trial on Unfair
Trade Practices as well because, according to the state's highest court, the violation of
certain landlord/tenant statutes was enough to constitute an unfair trade practice.
Also see: Civale v. Meriden Housing Authority, 192 A. 2d 548 (1963).
Robinson v. Weitz, 370A.2d 1066 (1976).
|