Lian v. Stalick
Decision Date | 19 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 19485-0-III.,19485-0-III. |
Citation | 106 Wash.App. 811,25 P.3d 467 |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | Susan LIAN, Respondent, v. John STALICK, III and Jane Doe Stalick, husband and wife and the marital community composed thereof; & John J. Stalick, III as personal representative of the Estate of Jean D. Stalick, Deceased, Appellants. |
Byron L. McLean, Spokane, for Appellants.
Lloyd A. Herman, Lloyd Herman & Associates, Spokane, for Respondent.
Susan White, formerly Susan Lian, fell on the obviously decrepit steps of her apartment. She sued her landlord for injuries. Concluding the landlord breached the warranty of habitability under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, chapter 59.18 RCW (RLTA), the trial court awarded Ms. White special and general damages. Under subsequent case law, the trial court erred when deciding the scope of remedies available for that breach. Damages were properly decided. We reverse and remand for proceedings to decide if liability exists under common law liability theories.
Jean Stalick (deceased) owned the Benson Motel Apartments, managed by her son, John Stalick, III (collectively Mr. Stalick). Susan White occupied one unit. The steps in front of Ms. White's unit were decrepit, rotten, and inherently dangerous. Ms. White and the Stalicks were aware of the step's poor condition. The trial court orally discussed allegations that complaints were made and repairs attempted and that the conditions caused Ms. White's fall and her injuries.
Ms. White filed a negligence complaint against Mr. Stalick. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court concluded Mr. Stalick breached the statutory duty to maintain safe premises under RCW 59.18.060. The trial court entered consistent findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in Ms. White's favor in the sum of $58,307.15 for special and general damages plus interest, attorney fees, and costs.
Mr. Stalick unsuccessfully filed a CR 59 motion for reconsideration, or alternatively, a new trial. Then, Mr. Stalick appealed.
Did the trial court err by (A) concluding Mr. Stalick breached RLTA's warranty of habitability, (B) ordering remedies exceeding those specified in the RLTA, or (C) deciding the amount of damages, apart from liability.
Generally, at common law, a landlord had neither a duty to provide habitable rental property nor a duty to repair rental property. Hughes v. Chehalis Sch. Dist. No. 302, 61 Wash.2d 222, 225, 377 P.2d 642 (1963). This approach was abandoned in Foisy v. Wyman, 83 Wash.2d 22, 28, 515 P.2d 160 (1973). The Foisy court granted an implied warranty of habitability, finding support in the newly enacted RLTA. Id. at 28-29, 515 P.2d 160.
The RLTA provision relating to habitability partly states:
RCW 59.18.060.
RCW 59.18.060 does not create a generally actionable duty on the part of the landlord to "keep the premises fit for human habitation." See Aspon v. Loomis, 62 Wash. App. 818, 825-26, 816 P.2d 751 (1991)
. Rather, the landlord's duties are limited to those specifically listed in RCW 59.18.060. Id.
Mr. Stalick, relying on Klos v. Gockel, 87 Wash.2d 567, 554 P.2d 1349 (1976), argues the RLTA warranty of habitability applies solely to defects rendering the dwelling uninhabitable. In Klos, a case involving new construction, the court reversed a judgment for violating the implied warranty of habitability on the basis that the owner-builder was not engaged in a commercial activity. Id. at 571, 554 P.2d 1349. In dictum, the Klos court noted "that the house was habitable at all times." Id. But the Klos dictum does not constitute a rule that the aggrieved occupant must abandon the residence before invoking the implied warranty of liability. Luxon v. Caviezel, 42 Wash.App. 261, 266 n. 4, 710 P.2d 809 (1985). Accordingly, we reject Mr. Stalick's proposed rule.
Relying on Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., 109 Wash.2d 406, 415-16, 745 P.2d 1284 (1987), Mr. Stalick further contends the warranty of habitability does not apply to defects in exterior nonstructural elements adjacent to the dwelling. But Stuart does not offer the support Mr. Stalick seeks. In Stuart, the representatives of condominium owners brought suit against the owner-developer-builder-vendor of the complex for various construction defects affecting decks and access walkways. Id. at 410-11, 745 P.2d 1284. Regarding the access walkways, the Supreme Court reasoned "one could plausibly argue that the defects occurred in an essential portion of the dwelling itself." Id. at 417, 745 P.2d 1284. "Such a defect could be said to render a home unit unfit for its intended purpose." Id. The Stuart court remanded the matter so the trial court could determine "which units owned by such plaintiffs had walkways so impaired that the sole means of access to the unit was dangerous to negotiate." Id. at 422, 745 P.2d 1284.
review denied, 138 Wash.2d 1017, 989 P.2d 1143 (1999) ( ). But, in Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Association Board v. Blume Development Company, 115 Wash.2d 506, 519-22, 799 P.2d 250 (1990), the Supreme Court declined to apply Stuart as a general rule, reasoning it would interpret the applicability of the implied warranty of habitability on a Id. at 520, 799 P.2d 250. Further, the policy grounds underlying the implied warranty of liability brought certain Uniform Building Code (UBC) code violations within the purview of the rule. Id. at 521-22, 799 P.2d 250. Specifically:
The alleged building code violations are neither trivial or aesthetic concerns, nor those involving procedural breaches. Rather, the alleged building code violations concern fundamental fire safety provisions regarding the construction of Atherton's floors and ceilings. As such, the alleged defects are within the purview of the implied warranty of habitability and should not have been dismissed on summary judgment as a matter of law.
Atherton, 115 Wash.2d at 522, 799 P.2d 250 (footnotes omitted).
Therefore, application of the implied warranty of habitability depends on the particular circumstances. Id. at 520, 799 P.2d 250. Generally, the warranty applies whenever the defects in a particular dwelling render it uninhabitable or pose an actual or potential safety hazard to its occupants. Id. at 522, 799 P.2d 250; Stuart, 109 Wash.2d at 416, 745 P.2d 1284. Thus, Mr. Stalick's general proposition that any breach of the warranty of habitability must entail a defect so severe as to render the dwelling uninhabitable is unpersuasive.
Mr. Stalick's other contention, that the warranty of habitability does not apply because the steps were not a structural part of the building, is equally unpersuasive. In Stuart, the Supreme Court reasoned that defective access walkways would trigger a plausible habitability claim; a dwelling lacking a safe means of access is unfit for its intended purpose. Stuart, 109 Wash.2d at 417, 745 P.2d 1284. Here, the rotting steps were directly attached and provided the sole means of access. The steps' condition was neither a trivial nor an aesthetic defect. Atherton, 115 Wash.2d at 522, 799 P.2d 250.
In the RLTA context, the defects must constitute violations of the landlord's specific duties as set forth under RCW 59.18.060. Aspon, 62 Wash.App. at 825-26, 816 P.2d 751. Here, the uncontroverted facts show the steps failed to comply with the UBC. RCW 59.18.060(1). Substantial evidence shows Mr. Stalick failed to maintain the steps, as a structural component of the dwelling, in good repair so as to render them usable and capable of withstanding normal forces and loads. RCW 59.18.060(2). And it is obvious Mr. Stalick failed to put the steps in as good condition, as required by law, as they should have been at the commencement of the tenancy. RCW 59.18.060(5). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding Mr. Stalick in breach of the implied warranty of habitability under RCW 59.18.060.
We asked for additional briefing on Dexheimer v. CDS, Inc., 104 Wash.App. 464, 17 P.3d 641 (2001), a case not available to the trial court when this matter was tried. In Dexheimer we held a tenant's remedies for a landlord's violation of the RLTA 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gerlach v. Cove Apartments, LLC
...policy, through which he or she may recover for injuries caused by the landlord's breach of the RLTA." Lian v. Stalick , 106 Wash. App. 811, 822, 25 P.3d 467 (2001) ( Lian I ); see also Lian v. Stalick , 115 Wash. App. 590, 62 P.3d 933 (2003) ( Lian II ); Tucker v. Hayford , 118 Wash. App. ......
-
Beasley v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
...59.20.010.13 Chapter 59.18 RCW.14 Citing Segura , 184 Wash.2d at 596, 362 P.3d 1278 (addressing damages under RLTA); Lian v. Stalick , 106 Wash. App. 811, 25 P.3d 467 (2001) (addressing damages under RLTA); Martini , 137 Wash.2d at 367-68, 971 P.2d 45 (addressing damages under the WLAD).15 ......
-
Beasley v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
...59.20.010.13 Chapter 59.18 RCW.14 Citing Segura , 184 Wash.2d at 596, 362 P.3d 1278 (addressing damages under RLTA); Lian v. Stalick , 106 Wash. App. 811, 25 P.3d 467 (2001) (addressing damages under RLTA); Martini , 137 Wash.2d at 367-68, 971 P.2d 45 (addressing damages under the WLAD).15 ......
-
Tucker v. Hayford
...regulation. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF PROPERTY § 17.6 (1977) (emphasis added). We adopted this section of the Restatement in Lian v. Stalick.9 There, we recognized a cause of action for the implied warranty of habitability under the Landlord-Tenant Act according to subpart (1) of the Restatem......
-
Chapter §17.5 Interference With Tenant's Possession
...leases only) or of failure to warn of latent defects, both of which are discussed in §17.4(5). See Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wn.App. 811, 25 P.3d 467 (2001) (breach of implied warranty of habitability); Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wn.App. 327, 115 P.3d 1000 (2005) (implied warranty of habitability and......
-
Chapter § 12.7 Standard of Review Applied to Specific Rulings: Civil Cases
...law are review de novo. Worden v. Smith, 178 Wn. App. 309, 322-23, 314 P.3d 1125 (2013) (citing Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wn. App. 811, 823-24, 25 P.3d 467 (2001), and State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 577-78, 238 P.3d 487 (15) Vacation of judgment Rulings on CR 60 motions and motions to vacate a ......
-
Chapter 32
...21.12(4) Lewis v. Simpson Timber Co., 145 Wn. App. 302, 189 P.3d 178 (2008): 12.5, 12.7(9), 21.15(2)(d) Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wn. App. 811, 25 P.3d 467 (2001): 12.7(14) Liberty Lake Sewer Dist. No. 1 v. Liberty Lake Util. Co., Inc., 37 Wn. App. 809, 683 P.2d 1117, review denied, 102 Wn.2d 10......
-
Chapter 33
...387, 725 P.2d 644 (1986): 5.5(4) Lewis v. Kujawa, 158 Wash. 607, 291 P. 1105 (1930): 20.11, 20.11(3) Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wn.App. 811, 25 P.3d 467 (2001): 17.5(4)(e) Liberty Lake Sewer Dist. No. 1 v. Liberty Lake Util. Co., 37 Wn.App. 809, 683 P.2d 1117, review denied, 102 Wn.2d 1009 (1984)......