Hanson v. Luft

• Decision Date: 27 September 1962
• Parties: , 374 P.2d 641 Lynn HANSON, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Herman W. LUFT and Louise M. Luft, Defendants and Respondents. S. F. 21115.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 681

24 Cal.Rptr. 681

58 Cal.2d 443, 374 P.2d 641

Lynn HANSON, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Herman W. LUFT and Louise M. Luft, Defendants and Respondents.

S. F. 21115.

Supreme Court of California.

Sept. 27, 1962.

William E. Barden and Robert J. Smith, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon and Ernest M. Thayer, San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.

DOOLING, Justice.

Plaintiff, a child five years old, brought this action to recover damages for burns which she received when her pajamas were ignited while she was standing in front of an open gas heater in an apartment which her parents had rented from the defendants. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. A photograph of the heater is made a part of the complaint, and it is alleged to have seven burners for the use of gas immediately in front of a backing of clay radiant; that the distance from the burners to the front of the heater is from 3 to 4 1/2 inches and at the top of the radiant the distance of the flame from the front of the canopy is 2 inches; that the height of the flame and radiant is 7 inches and its width 10 inches; that after burning for a few minutes the radiant becomes incandescent and attains a temperature of upwards of 700 Fahrenheit; and that there was no grillwork, screen, bars or any other device to prevent the clothing of persons coming in contact with the open flame. From the photograph and the allegations of the second amended complaint, it is clear that whatever the extent of the danger from the fact that the heater was open and unguarded the fact that it was so open and unguarded was obvious to any person who observed it.

Plaintiff attempts to state a cause of action on the theory that the hazard from this heater was known to defendants and unknown to plaintiff and that defendants did not warn plaintiff's parents or plaintiff of such danger.

It is the settled rule that while a landlord is under a duty to warn the tenant of any hidden danger or defect in the leased premises of which he has knowledge (Shotwell v. Bloom, 60 Cal.App.2d 303, 140 P.2d 728; Prosser, Torts (2d ed.) pp. 466-467; Rest, Torts, § 358), there is no duty to warn the tenant of obvious and patent defects and dangers (Hatch v. McCloud River Lumber Co., 150 Cal. 111, 113, 88 P. 355; Allen v. Paradise Grange No. 490, Inc., 159 Cal.App.2d 247, 250, 323 P.2d 468; Hogan v. Miller, 153 Cal.App.2d 107, 114, 314 P.2d 230; Powell v. Stivers, 108 Cal.App.2d 72, 238 P.2d 34; Colburn v. Shuravlev, 24 Cal.App.2d 298, 74 P.2d 1060).

It is also the rule that the landlord's liability to invitees of the tenant, including members of his family, is no greater than it would be to the tenant himself. If the defect is known to the tenant and the tenant fails to protect his invitee against it, the tenant may be liable but the landlord is not. The rule is quoted from 1 Tiffany, Landlord and Tenant, section 96(b), page 653, in Shotwell v. Bloom, supra, 60 Cal.App.2d page 311, 140 P.2d page 733: 'The lessee's knowledge is in effect imputed to the person injured, or rather, perhaps, it is the lessee's duty, not the lessor's, to inform persons, entering on the premises by the former's invitation or permission, of the dangerous condition. A different rule, requiring the lessor to give such information to every person whom the lessee may allow upon the premises, would impose on the lessor the duties of an occupant while divested of the benefits, and would in effect prevent the leasing of any premises in which there is a concealed source of danger to persons who might enter thereon.' The same idea is sometimes expressed by the metaphorical phrase that the invitee 'stands in the shoes of the tenant' and so may recover against the landlord only if the tenant could recover. (Shotwell v. Bloom, supra, 60 Cal.App.2d at p. 311, 140 P.2d at p. 733; Runyon v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.App. 383, 392, 180 P. 837.)

The danger of any person, including the minor plaintiff, being burned if he came too close to...