Tenant's mother falls down flight of stairs

Tenants blame fall on lack of handrail and dangerous top step

Torrence v. Waters at Champions Apartments, Court of Appeals of Texas, Ist Dist., Houston, No. 01-96-01472-CV(1998)

      Is a missing handrail a hidden defect? Is a non-uniform step dangerous?

Facts of the case:

      Torrence and his wife leased an apartment at the Waters at Champions Apartments in Texas. Torrence's mother temporarily moved in with the couple to help with their new baby.

      The staircase leading to the apartment's second floor had no handrail. One morning the tenant’s mother slipped and fell while carrying laundry down the steps.

      The tenants sued Waters at Champions, claiming the landlords knew the stairs were unreasonably dangerous but did nothing to fix them. The Tenants also claimed that although they used the stairs every day, they didn't know the stairs were dangerous and couldn't have reasonably discovered the danger. They didn't specifically identify the dangerous condition.

      State law requires that landlords use reasonable care over property they control. When a landlord transferred control to a tenant, the landlord was no longer liable for injuries caused by an unsafe condition, unless the landlord knew of the danger when the lease was signed. Landlords had a duty to notify tenants of any dangers they knew about.

      The landlords asked the court for judgment without a trial, arguing that if the lack of a handrail was a defect, they owed the Torrences no duty because it was an obvious defect and the Torrences never notified them the stairs were defective.

      The property manager said the staircase was similar to those in other Champions apartments. She said she reviewed the inventory checklist and all work orders and complaint forms and found no record that the landlords were ever notified of any problems regarding the stairs or the lack of handrails.

      The Torrences claimed the mother fell because a step near the top of the stairs was "substantially different" in depth than the other steps, and that the absence of a handrail was a hidden defect. Their expert, an engineering consultant, said the stairs didn't comply with good engineering practices or safety codes, and said that the stairs were unsafe because the top step wasn't uniform with the remaining steps.

Trial court finds for landlord

The court awarded the landlords judgment without trial.

Tenants appeal

DECISION: Reversed

      The case was returrned to the trial court. Appellate judges found that the Torrences were entitled to a trial because the landlords didn't prove there was no dangerous condition. Although the landlords may have shown they weren't liable based on the lack of a handrail, they didn't address the non-uniform step and didn't indicate whether the property manager spoke with anyone who managed the property before her. The landlords could be found liable if they knew the top step was dangerous.

 Also also: Montelongo v. Goodall, 78 S. W.2d 717 (1990).
                 Lefmark Management Company v. Old, 946 S. W.2d 52 (199