Young v. Morrisey
| Decision Date | 17 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22289,22289 |
| Parties | C.B. YOUNG, Sr., as Administrator of the Estate of Jacqueline Laverne Young, Appellant, v. Joseph O. MORRISEY, Jr., Garth H. Sherman and Richard L. Neibling, d/b/a General Partners of the Limited Partnership of Broadmoor Apartments of Spartanburg, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
James W. Hudgens, of Spartanburg, for respondents.
These wrongful death and survival actions were instituted by the appellant administrators of the estates of Jacqueline Young and Tonnette Wells against the respondent general partners of Broadmoor Apartments of Spartanburg. The trial judge entered summary judgment for the respondents. We affirm.
The respondents served as owner/general contractors for the construction in 1976 of the Broadmoor Apartments. They entered into a contract with The Rogers Company in which Rogers agreed to furnish "in excellent workmanlike manner all materials, supplies, services, labor, layout, tools, equipment, supervision ... and all other items necessary to complete entirely the electrical system ..." Rogers served as electrical subcontractor throughout the project. He performed all electrical work, including the wiring of the heating and air conditioning units in the individual apartments.
Cynthia Wells rented an apartment from Broadmoor. On June 1, 1981, Cynthia arrived at the apartment at about 10:30 P.M., accompanied by two overnight guests, Jacqueline Young (age 15) and Tonnette Wells (age 14). The two girls stayed up to watch The depositions of experts revealed that the fire originated in the control box of the furnace as a result of defective or improperly installed wiring.
television, and Cynthia went to bed. She later heard the other girls go to bed in another bedroom. During the night, she awoke to hear Tonnette's voice calling her name. Cynthia jumped out of bed, saw that the apartment was filled with smoke, and knocked a window out. She jumped to the ground, but the other girls perished in the fire
The Complaints purport to allege causes of action for strict liability, implied warranty of habitability, and negligence. The trial court properly granted the respondents summary judgment.
The Complaints alleged that Broadmoor placed on the market an apartment which was defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. They further alleged that, as a result of the defective condition, the appellants' decedents suffered severe personal injuries resulting in death and that the landlord should be held strictly liable. We decline to hold the landlord an insurer against personal injuries to tenants and guests arising out of latent defects in construction.
Traditionally, under the law of South Carolina, a landlord owes no duty to maintain leased premises in a safe condition. Absent an express warranty or fraudulent concealment, he is not liable for any defect in the leased premises. A landlord may, however, enter into a binding agreement to keep the demised premises in repair, but even then the landlord is entitled to notice of any existing defects before becoming obligated to repair. Even when a landlord so obligates himself, a failure to make repairs will give rise merely to a right of action for breach of contract under which damages are not recoverable for personal injuries sustained by reason of the defective condition of the premises. 1 Timmons v. Williams Wood Products Corp., 164 S.C. 361, 162 S.E. 329 (1932); Conner v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 243 S.C. 132, 132 S.E.2d 385 (1963); Sheppard v. Nienow, 254 S.C. 44, 173 S.E.2d 343 (1970).
The appellants allege no fraudulent concealment or express warranty by Broadmoor to maintain the premises in a safe condition. Broadmoor had apparently covenanted to repair the leased premises, but this duty arose only upon notice of the defect.
A New Jersey court listed numerous compelling reasons for refusing to impose strict liability on landlords.
(1) A landlord is not engaged in mass production whereby he places his product--the apartment--in a stream of commerce exposing it to a large number of consumers; (2) he has not created the product with a defect which is preventable by greater care at the time of manufacture or assembly; (3) he does not have the expertise to know and correct the condition, so as to be saddled with responsibility for a defect regardless of negligence; (4) an apartment includes several rooms with many facilities constructed by many artisans with differing types of expertise, and subject to constant use and deterioration from many causes; (5) it is a commodity wholly unlike a product which is expected to leave a manufacturer's hands in a safe condition with an implied representation upon which the consumer relies; (6) the tenant may expect that at the time of letting there are no hidden dangerous defects known to the landlord of which the tenant has not been warned, but he does not expect that all will be perfect in his apartment for all the years of his occupancy; (7) to apply strict liability would impose an unjust burden on property owners; how can a property owner prevent a latent defect or repair when he has no way of detecting it? And if he can't prevent the defect, why should he be liable?
Dwyer v. Skyline Apartments, Inc., 123 N.J.Super. 48, 301 A.2d 463 (1973), aff'd mem., 63 N.J. 577, 311 A.2d 1 (1973).
This Court has rejected the insurer concept in numerous similar settings. Merchants are not insurers of the safety of their customers. See cases collected at 14 S.C. Digest Negligence Key No. 32(1). Common carriers are not insurers of the safety of their passengers. Singletary v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 217 S.C. 212, 60 S.E.2d 305 (1950). Innkeepers are not insurers of their guests' safety. See cases collected at 11 S.C. Digest Innkeepers Key Nos. 10.1, 10.3. Amusement operators do not insure their patrons' safety. See cases collected at 17A S.C. Digest Theaters and Shows Key No. 6. Nor do we hold landlords insurers of the safety of tenants and guests from injuries caused by latent defects.
The appellants next contend that the respondents breached an implied warranty of habitability in failing to provide an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Superior Court
...so as to be saddled with responsibility for a defect regardless of negligence...." (Id. 301 A.2d at p. 467.) In Young v. Morrisey (1985) 285 S.C. 236, 329 S.E.2d 426, 428, the Supreme Court of South Carolina adopted the holding in Dwyer, adding: "We decline to hold the landlord an insurer a......
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd.
...the lessor is not responsible for hazardous conditions which thereafter develop or are created by a lessee. See Young v. Morrisey, 285 S.C. 236, 329 S.E.2d 426 (1985) (lessor owes no duty to maintain leased premises in safe condition); see also Sheppard v. Nienow, 254 S.C. 44, 173 S.E.2d 34......
-
Arlington Forest Associates v. Exxon Corp.
...v. Skousen & Hise, 64 N.M. 290, 327 P.2d 802 (1958); Hudson v. Peavey Oil Co., 279 Or. 3, 566 P.2d 175 (1977); Young v. Morrisey, 285 S.C. 236, 329 S.E.2d 426 (1985); Peneschi v. National Steel Corp., 170 W.Va. 511, 295 S.E.2d 1 4 The language of § 520(c) is somewhat ambiguous. A straight-f......
-
Ranalli v. Edro Motel Corp.
...229, 604 N.Y.S.2d 243 (App.Div.1993); Winston Properties v. Sanders, 57 Ohio App.3d 28, 565 N.E.2d 1280 (1989); Young v. Morrisey, 285 S.C. 236, 329 S.E.2d 426 (1985); Bolin Dev. Corp. v. Indart, 803 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Ct.App.1991); Williams v. Melby, 699 P.2d 723 (Utah 1985); Lincoln v. Farnk......
-
Premises Liability Law
...landlord and insurer against personal injuries to guests and tenants arising out of latent defects in constructions.” Young v. Morrisey , 285 S.C. 236 (S.C. 1985). In 1985, California courts imputed strict liability to the lessors of residential property for injuries occurring from latent d......
-
Whatever Happened to Landlord-tenant Law?
...The Transformation of American Landlord-Tenant Law, 23 B.C. L. REV. 503, 503-05 (1982). 14. For example, after Young v. Morrissey, 329 S.E.2d 426 (S.C. 1985), rejected imposing a warranty of habitability, the South Carolina Legislature enacted S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 27-40-10 to -60 (Law Co-op. 1......