College Mobile Home Park & Sales, Inc. v. Hoffmann
| Decision Date | 04 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 685,685 |
| Parties | COLLEGE MOBILE HOME PARK & SALES, INC., Appellant, v. Carl E. HOFFMANN, Respondent. (1974). |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Zurlo & Weber, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Louis J. Mestre and Larry Farris, of Milwaukee Legal Services, Inc., Milwaukee, for respondent.
The issue in the case concerns the validity of an exculpatory clause in a landlord-tenant mobile home park lease relationship. The question to be resolved is whether the trial court committed error in dismissing the motion of College for summary judgment.
College is engaged in the business of mobile home sales and rentals. College commenced an eviction action in May, 1973, alleging that on or about December 1, 1969, it entered into an oral month-to-month lease with Hoffmann, and that Hoffmann, had defaulted in rent and utility payments since March 1, 1973. These facts do not appear to be in dispute. Judgment was demanded for the eviction of Hoffmann and in a second cause of action, College sought damages in the amount of the unpaid rent and utilities.
Hoffmann counterclaimed, alleging that during his tenancy College had failed to maintain adequate heating and claiming personal injury to himself and his family and other damage because of that failure. The registration card Hoffmann executed reflects the mobile home he rented was to be occupied by five persons. Hoffmann vacated the mobile home after the eviction action was commenced. College thereafter amended its complaint alleging only a cause of action for the unpaid rent. Hoffmann again answered and counterclaimed.
College moved for summary judgment on the counterclaim based upon an agreement which Hoffmann had signed at the time he rented the mobile home. The agreement, in pertinent part, provides:
'COLLEGE MOBILE HOME PARK--REGISTRATION CARD
'The management of this trailer park reserves the right at all times to terminate the tenancy of a tenant for reasons the former shall deem objectionable and will not be responsible for damage to trailers or any other personal property; nor accidents nor injury to tenants; fire, theft or loss of valuables in or around trailers. No dogs allowed. No rent refunds. Rend must be paid by 5th of month, after which there is a charge of 25cents per day. Management requires 30 day notice for expiration of tenancy. Tenant is required to obey rules and regulations of this park at all times.
'I have read the rules of this park and agree to abide by said rules.'
In disposing of the motion for summary judgment, the trial court correctly perceived the question to be '. . . whether the exculpatory language should be enforced so as to absolve the plaintiff (College) from all liability to the defendant (Hoffmann) for any injury sustained while a tenant.'
Exculpatory clauses in leases serve the purpose of prospectively absolving the landlord of liability in various circumstances. They are commonly worded very broadly so as to cover damage to property and injury to persons and the scope of their applicability depends upon the language of the particular clause and the type of tenancy. 2 Powell, Property, sec. 234(4), p. 366. As a general rule such clauses are valid. The justification for upholding the validity of such clauses stems from the concept of freedom of contract, grounded in state and federal constitutional provisions. Queen Ins. Co. of America v. Kaiser (1965), 27 Wis.2d 571, 135 N.W.2d 247. 1
The consequences resulting from the use of such clauses have led to a judicial application of rules of strict construction of their terms in favor of the lessee. Powell, supra, p. 368. However, strict construction does not necessarily accomplish the purpose of mitigating the effects of the clause. Accordingly, several states, including Massachusetts and New York, have enacted statutes prohibiting such exculpatory clauses. 2 In addition, exceptions to the general rule of validity, especially in relation to certain types of residential leases, have been articulated by the courts of various jurisdictions in recent years.
Thus, the court in McCutcheon v. United Homes Corporation (1971), 79 Wash.2d 443, 486 P.2d 1093, found that the type of exculpatory clause in question was void as contravening public policy. The clause exempted the landlord from liability if a tenant sustained personal injury in the common areas of the multi-unit dwelling as a result of the landlord's negligence. The court was of the opinion that the exculpation violated the basic common-law rules of tort liability extant in the landlord-tenant relationship and, therefore, could not be enforced. The Washington court determined that the subject matter was not a purely private consideration, but rather one of public concern, because of its generalized use, affecting large numbers of potential tenants.
Similarly, in Tenants Council, etc. v. DeFranceaux (D.C.D.C.1969), 305 F.Supp. 560, a clause purporting to exempt the landlord of liability from injury resulting from use of the swimming pool facilities was determined to be invalid as against public policy. In addition, the court stated that it was invalid because it would insulate the landlord from the consequences of violation of duties imposed both by the common law and the local building code.
A significant exception has also developed in the situation where the parties are of unequal bargaining power. This inequality may be evidenced by a variety of circumstances. In Kuzmiak v. Brookchester, Inc. (1955), 33 N.J.Super. 575, 111 A.2d 425, the housing shortage then existing was deemed to place the landlord in a superior position. The court in Cardona v. Eden Realty Company (1972), 118 N.J.Super. 381, 288 A.2d 34, was of opinion that the lease provisions in their entirety, including certain lessee waivers, in themselves revealed that the landlord was in an eminently superior bargaining position. The court stated that:
'While it is conceivable that even in some noncommercial transactions a landlord and tenant might properly negotiate a lease to rent property 'as is' and in consideration of a reduced rental the tenant assume all liability for repairs and insurance coverage, it is clear that in this multiple-tenant tenement house lease, the provisions thereof were oppressively for the benefit of the landlord and against public policy.' Cardona v. Eden Realty Company, supra, p. 36.
In Crowell v. Housing Authority of City of Dallas (Tex.1973), 495 S.W.2d 887, it was recognized that the very purpose for the existence of the Housing Authority, which was to provide safe and sanitary living accommodations to persons of low income, gave rise to a classic example of unequal bargaining power. For this reason, the clause was determined to be void in light of public policy.
The above cited cases are illustrative of the myriad approaches which have been taken by various courts when presented with situations where landlords attempt to exempt themselves from prospective liability for their own negligence. Exculpatory clauses have been upheld basically on the grounds of freedom of contract and the view that lease terms are a purely private matter. However, the application of these principles in all contexts is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. T.H.E. Ins. Co.
...any injury to the [plaintiff] for any reason.” Richards, 181 Wis.2d at 1015, 513 N.W.2d 118 (citing College Mobile Home Park & Sales v. Hoffmann, 72 Wis.2d 514, 521–22, 241 N.W.2d 174 (1976) ).¶ 60 The waiver in this case would absolve Sundog for any activity for any reason, known or unknow......
-
Ransburg v. Richards
...that the facts and circumstances attendant upon the creation of the landlord-tenant relationship. College Mobile Home Park & Sales v. Hoffmann, 72 Wis.2d 514, 519, 241 N.W.2d 174, 177 (1976). A growing number of states have held similar exculpatory clauses to offend public policy concerns a......
-
State Com'rs of Bd. of Public Lands v. Thiel
...added.) Quoting Lawver v. Boling, 71 Wis.2d 408, 413, 414, 238 N.W.2d 514 (1976). See also: College Mobile Home Park & Sales v. Hoffmann, 72 Wis.2d 514, 521, 241 N.W.2d 174, 178 (1976); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Mortg. Investors, 76 Wis.2d 151, 154, 155, 250 N.W.2d 362 In the instant......
-
Crawford v. Buckner
...887 (Texas 1973); McCutcheon v. United Homes Corp., supra, 79 Wash.2d 443, 486 P.2d 1093 (1971); College Mobile Home Park & Sales, Inc. v. Hoffman, 72 Wis.2d 514, 241 N.W.2d 174 (1976). Finally, the defendants argue that declaring public policy in Tennessee is the province of the legislatur......
-
Adhesion contracts don't stick in Michigan: why Rory got it right.
...enforce might have been enforced if it appeared to be a negotiated term. See, e.g., Coll. Mobile Home Park & Sales, Inc. v. Hoffmann, 241 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Wis. (75.) 8 WILLISTON & LORD, supra note 54, [section] 18:10, at 59-62. (76.) Id. In fact, in some jurisdictions, only one elem......