Dexheimer v. CDS, INC.

• Decision Date: 25 January 2001
• Docket Number: No. 18913-9-III.,18913-9-III.
• Citation: 17 P.3d 641,104 Wash.App. 464
• Parties: Chris DEXHEIMER and Melissa Dexheimer, husband and wife, Respondents, v. CDS, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendant, Ralph and Gertrude Guthrie, husband and wife, Appellants.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

17 P.3d 641

104 Wash.App. 464

Chris DEXHEIMER and Melissa Dexheimer, husband and wife, Respondents, v. CDS, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendant, Ralph and Gertrude Guthrie, husband and wife, Appellants.

No. 18913-9-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel Eight.

January 25, 2001.

Dudley R. Forster, Hayden, ID, Randall R. Adams, Coeur D'Alene, ID, for Appellants.

Frederic G. Fancher, Daniel E. Huntington, Richter-Wimberley, Spokane, for Respondents.

SWEENEY, J.

A tenant may premise an action against a landlord under any of three legal theories: the Residential Landlord Tenant Act (RLTA), the rental agreement, or the common law. Howard v. Horn, 61 Wash. App. 520, 522-23, 810 P.2d 1387 (1991). But not all three theories allow for the recovery of monetary damages. Here, the court instructed the jury on all three theories. And the jury awarded full traditional tort damages.

The dispositive questions presented are first, whether the trial court erred by permitting the jury to award monetary damages for violations of the RLTA. And second, whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the terms of the lease when breach of contract was not pleaded. We conclude that it did, and reverse and remand for a new trial on liability only.

FACTS

Ralph Guthrie leased a duplex to Chris and Melissa Dexheimer. The Dexheimers participate in a federally funded rental assistance program. The Spokane Housing Authority (SHA) inspected the duplex pursuant to the rental assistance program and found four "unit deficiencies." The deficiencies included a wheel on the left side of the duplex's garage door; it was out of its track. A bolt from the bracket holding the wheel to the panel was also missing. The SHA inspector reinserted the wheel into the track. Mr. Dexheimer installed the missing bolt.

SHA inspected the duplex six days later and concluded that the deficiencies had been corrected. Mrs. Dexheimer signed off on the inspection form. And the Dexheimers moved in.

The garage door failed less than four months later. It came out of its right-side track as Mr. Dexheimer attempted to open it. The door struck and seriously injured him. The door failed because it was not properly aligned.

The Dexheimers sued Mr. Guthrie. They alleged that he was negligent in failing to maintain and repair the garage door; and the door was not installed, maintained, and repaired in proper working condition. The Dexheimers also sued the maker of the garage door, CDS, Inc., but later settled with CDS.

The court instructed the jury on a number of the duties required by the RLTA (RCW 59.18.060¹). Instruction 15. It also instructed on duties imposed on landlords by the federal rental assistance program. Instruction 17.²

Mr. Guthrie objected to both instructions because they failed to limit the Dexheimers' remedies to those provided by the RLTA and instead allowed the jury to award traditional tort damages.

The jury found Mr. Guthrie was negligent and awarded the Dexheimers $35,000 for past economic damages, $65,000 for non-economic damages, and $150,000 for future economic damages.

DISCUSSION

1. RLTA as a Basis for Tort Liability.

Mr. Guthrie contends that Instruction 15 allowed the Dexheimers to maintain a tort action based on the RLTA duties. And the RLTA's remedies are limited to those provided by the statute. He further argued that any claim requires notice to the landlord and an opportunity to repair.

In pertinent part, Instruction 15 read:

To establish negligence for breach of a duty owed by a landlord to a tenant, the Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the Defendant breached one or more of the following duties:

(1) To keep the premises fit for human habitation;

(2) Maintain the roofs, floors, walls, chimneys, fireplaces, foundations, and all other structural components in reasonably good repair so as to be usable and capable of resisting any and all normal forces and loads to which they may be subjected;

(3) Except when the condition is attributable to normal wear and tear, make repairs and arrangements necessary to put and keep the premises in as good condition as it by law or rental agreement should have been, at the commencement of the tenancy;

(4) To provide reasonably adequate locks and furnish keys to the tenant;

(5) To maintain all electrical, plumbing, heating, and other facilities and appliances supplied by the landlord in reasonably good working order[.]

The question presented is one of law. So the standard of review is de novo. Western Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma Dep't of Fin., 140 Wash.2d 599, 607, 998 P.2d 884 (2000).

A tenant may premise an action against a landlord based on three premises: the rental agreement, the common law, and the RLTA. Howard v. Horn, 61 Wash.App. 520, 522-23, 810 P.2d 1387 (1991). The RLTA is codified in chapter 59.18 RCW. The Dexheimers' amended complaint spells out their legal theory against Mr. Guthrie. Their theory is that Mr. Guthrie negligently maintained the garage door:

The liability creating occurrence was the direct result of Defendants Ralph and Gertrude Guthrie, as landlords for the above referenced premises, not maintaining and repairing all structural components of the rental property, such that the components would withstand any and all normal uses. Specifically, the garage door of the rental unit at 11714 East Railroad Ave., Spokane, WA was not installed, maintained, and repaired in proper working condition. Said failure of the Defendants was negligent and a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries.

(Emphasis added.)

The court's Instruction 15 is a modified version of 6 WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CIVIL 130.06, at 133 (3d ed. Supp.1994) (WPI). WPI 130.06 with minor changes reflects RCW 59.18.060.³ The instruction allows the jury to find Mr. Guthrie negligent if it finds he violated one or more of the duties imposed by RCW 59.18.060. Instruction 15. The jury was then allowed to find that Mr. Guthrie's negligence proximately caused Mr. Dexheimer's injury. Instruction 13. And finally, the instructions allowed the jury to award money damages for the injury. Instruction 24. Read together, the jury could then award special and general tort damages for Mr. Guthrie's failure to comply with the RLTA. This was error.

The RLTA provides remedies for a landlord's violation. RCW 59.18.090. "Those remedies, however, are limited to (1) the tenant's right to repair and deduct the cost from the rent, (2) a decrease in the rent based upon the diminished value of the premises, (3) payment of rent into a trust account, or (4) termination of the tenancy." Howard, 61 Wash.App. at 524-25, 810 P.2d 1387 (citing RCW 59.18.110(2), .115, .120).⁴

The RLTA represents a series of compromises between the interest of the modern-day landlord and the tenant. The tenant benefits from the imposition of specific affirmative duties imposed upon the landlord. Those duties effect the RLTA's implied warranty of habitability. RCW 59.18.060. And the RLTA remedies provide tenants with far more protection than existed at common law. William H. Clarke, Washington's Implied Warranty of Habitability: Reform or Illusion?, 14 GONZ. L.REV. 22-24 (1978). The landlord benefits because while the RLTA imposes a lengthy list of specific duties, it also limits the remedies available to the tenant for the breach of those duties. Howard, 61 Wash.App. at 524-25, 810 P.2d 1387.

Despite this, the court in Lincoln v. Farnkoff⁵ held that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the landlord's statutory duty to repair. There, the tenant was injured when a concrete block serving as a step tipped backwards and caused her to fall. Lincoln v. Farnkoff, 26 Wash.App. 717, 719, 613 P.2d 1212 (1980). The trial court refused to instruct the jury on a landlord's duties under RCW 59.18.060. Id. This court held that the jury should have been instructed on a landlord's duty to maintain the premises in "reasonably good repair," as per RCW 59.18.060(2). Id. at 719-20, 613 P.2d 1212. The opinion does not mention whether the plaintiff could then recover general damages for personal injuries under the RLTA. To the extent that Lincoln v. Farnkoff permits such a recovery, it is wrong.

Monetary damages are not available for a breach of a landlord's duties under the RLTA. State v. Schwab, 103 Wash.2d 542, 550-51, 693 P.2d 108 (1985); Aspon v. Loomis, 62 Wash.App. 818, 825-26, 816 P.2d 751 (1991); Howard, 61 Wash.App. at 524-25, 810 P.2d 1387. The court erred by allowing the Dexheimers to recover money damages for violations of RCW 59.18.060.

Defective jury instructions require reversal only when the defect was prejudicial. MacSuga v. Spokane County, 97 Wash. App. 435, 441, 983 P.2d 1167 (1999). "Prejudice means the outcome of the trial was affected." Id. It is impossible to ascertain whether the jury awarded monetary damages based on a breach of the RLTA. Mr. Guthrie was prejudiced.

2. Contract Duties Under the Rental Agreement.

Mr. Guthrie next contends the court erred by giving Instruction 17 for several reasons. First, Mr. Guthrie argues the instruction deals with duties arising only under the rental agreement (a contract). And the Dexheimers did not plead breach of contract. Second, Instruction 17 was misleading because it gave only a portion of the federal housing quality standards. He contends the entire section on housing quality standards should have been given. Third, he argues that violation of the housing quality standards will not support a cause of action in tort.

We agree that the duties spelled out in Instruction 17 are all contractual. And we also agree that the Dexheimers did not plead breach of contract. We need not reach Mr. Guthrie's other contentions because this issue is dispositive.

The complaint alleged negligence, plain and simple. But Instruction 17 instructed the jury on federal law that had been incorporated in the lease agreement:

The lease between

...