Hall v. Warren
| Decision Date | 30 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 16735,16735 |
| Citation | 632 P.2d 848 |
| Parties | James R. HALL, Brenda Hall, and Brenda Hall, as Guardian ad Litem for Karla Hall, a minor, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Harold WARREN, Raur Warren, Gary Warren and Newell Warren, Defendants andRespondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Robert M. McRae, Vernal, for plaintiffs and appellants.
John C. Beaslin, Vernal, for defendants and respondents.
Plaintiffs seek reversal of an adverse summary judgment in an action to recover damages against their landlords for personal injuries sustained as a result of a malfunctioning floor furnace in a rental unit.
Plaintiffs rented the residence on an oral month-to-month rental agreement commencing in February of 1976. At the time of the accident plaintiffs had occupied the rental property for approximately three years. On January 2, 1979, the floor furnace began to emit gases which resulted in the asphyxiation of plaintiffs. Emergency medical treatment was required and administered.
Plaintiffs claim they were unaware of any defect in the floor furnace and as a result had contacted neither defendants nor the Utah Gas Service Company for the purpose of having the furnace repaired. Before the accident plaintiffs had had little occasion to use the floor furnace, since alternative heating units had been sufficient prior to the severe weather conditions which occurred at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs also claim that at the time of moving in, and possibly one time thereafter, they were informed by defendants that the defendants intended to repair the floor furnace.
Plaintiffs based their claim for damages on three theories: negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability. The trial court treated defendants' motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and entered a judgment against plaintiffs on the ground that as a matter of law plaintiffs were not entitled to relief. We reverse and remand for trial.
On this appeal we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the losing party, Durham v. Margetts, Utah, 571 P.2d 1332 (1977); Thompson v. Ford Motor Co., 16 Utah 2d 30, 395 P.2d 62 (1964).
The duty imposed upon landlords by legislative enactment and judicial decree clearly create grounds upon which the allegations in the complaint state a cause of action.
The duty of the landlord to use reasonable care to protect lessees may rest on common law principles of negligence. In Stephenson v. Warner, Utah, 581 P.2d 567 (1978), the Court held that a landlord had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent the occurrence of dangerous conditions. The Court stated:
It is not to be doubted that a landlord is bound by the usual standard of exercising ordinary prudence and care to see that premises he leases are reasonably safe and suitable for intended uses, nor that under appropriate circumstances he may be held liable for injuries caused by any defects or dangerous conditions which he created, or of which he was aware, and which he should reasonably foresee would expose others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (581 P.2d at 568.)
In addition, a landlord may be subject to a duty of care imposed by a statute or ordinance. The City of Vernal has adopted by ordinance the Uniform Building Code, 1976 Edition. Pertinent safety standards established by the Code are considered as much a part of a lease as if expressed in the contract. Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C.Cir.1970); Steele v. Latimer, 214 Kan. 329, 521 P.2d 304 (1974).
The principle applies to oral leases, as well as written leases. In Steele plaintiff entered into a month-to-month oral lease. Notwithstanding the oral nature of the lease, the court read, by implication, the provisions of the City's housing code relating to minimum housing standards into the rental agreement between plaintiff and defendant:
Under familiar legal principles the provisions of the city's housing code relating to minimum housing standards were by implication read into and became a part of the rental agreement between Shirley Steele and Marvin E. Latimer. The pertinent rule of law is summarized in 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 257, pp. 654-656:
This obligation is in accord with the contemporary approach toward leased habitations which emphasizes the contractual nature of the relationship between the landlord and tenant instead of viewing a lease simply as demise of real estate.
To invoke the rule, a party must show (1) the existence of the statute or ordinance, (2) that the statute or ordinance was intended to protect the class of persons which includes the party, (3) that the protection is directed toward the type of harm which has in fact occurred as a result of the violation, and (4) that the violation of the ordinance or statute was a proximate cause of the injury complained of.
As a general rule, violation of a standard of safety set by a statute or ordinance is prima facie evidence of negligence. 1 Such a violation may be subject to justification or excuse if the defendant's conduct could nevertheless be reasonably said to fall within "the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances." Thompson v. Ford Motor Co., 16 Utah 2d 30, 33-34, 395 P.2d 62, 64 (1964). Accord, Intermountain Farmers Ass'n v. Fitzgerald, Utah, 574 P.2d 1162 (1978). See Restatement (Second) of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Wells Fargo Bank
...violation of a statute or ordinance whose purpose is to protect life, limb or property constituted negligence per se." Hall v. Warren , 632 P.2d 848, 851 n.1 (Utah 1981) (citing Smith v. Mine & Smelter Supply Co. , 32 Utah 21, 88 P. 683 (1907) ). "But [that] rule [underwent] an evolution." ......
-
Bauman by Chapman v. Crawford
...Agnello v. Puzzo, 110 Ill.App.3d 913, 66 Ill.Dec. 722, 443 N.E.2d 648 (1982); Dongo v. Banks, 448 A.2d 885 (Me.1982); Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848 (Utah 1981); Vandergrift v. Johnson, 157 W.Va. 958, 206 S.E.2d 515 ...
-
Wade v. Jobe
... ... See Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848, 850 (Utah 1981). It is based on the theory that the residential landlord warrants that the leased premises are habitable at ... ...
-
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Hess
... ... v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 594 P.2d 1332 (Utah 1979). In FMA Acceptance, the Supreme Court of Utah reaffirmed its holding in Warren v. Robison, 19 Utah 289, 57 P. 287 (1899), that under Utah law, "directors and officers may be personally liable for negligence in the management of ... In Utah, violation of a statute may support a claim of negligence per se only in cases involving dangerous instrumentalities. Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848, 850 (Utah 1981) ... 15 See Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Capozzi, 855 F.2d 1319, 1325 (8th ... ...
-
Landlord and Tenant Law: Implied Warranty of Habitability
...N.W.2d 409 (1961); Wilson v. Manning, 657 P.2d 251 (Utah 1982); see also, American Law On Property § 3.64 (1952). [8] See, Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848 (1981), appeal returned, 692 P.2d 737 (1981). [9] The phrase of Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware), was derived from the 16th Century Eng......
-
Reflections on the Constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Act
...[21] Senate Journal, 1986 General Session of the Forty-Sixth Legislature, p. 607. [22] 717 P.2d 670, 686 (Utah 1985). [23]Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848, 850-51 (Utah 1981); Little America Refining Company v. Leyba, 641 P.2d 112, 114 n. 3 (Utah 1982). [24] Utah Code Annotated §§ 78-27-37 thro......
-
It Is Time to Revise Jifu
...which constitutes negligence per se and the violation of statutes which results in a prima facie case of negligence. In Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848 (Utah 1981), the Utah Supreme Court noted that violation of a statutory provision is prima facie evidence of negligence in cases dealing with ......