Landlord-tenant hell: drinking guests and faulty railings
Welcome back to Attorney Richard D. Vetstein. Today, he tells us about Scott v. Garfield. This case was about a guest who fell off a porch. The porch had a faulty rail; the guest had a few beers. Is the landlord liable for the injuries of the guest? How do you think it should have turned out? Here’s what happened in court:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that a landlord was liable for breaching the implied warranty of habitability when a tenant’s guest seriously injured himself falling from a defective porch. The case is Scott v. Garfield, and can be found here.What’s the Implied Warranty of Habitability?
The implied warranty of habitability is a legal concept that imposes a legal duty on a residential landlord, in the form of an implied agreement, to ensure that an apartment complies with the State building and sanitary codes. Under the implied warranty of habitability, a landlord can be liable for personal injuries if a tenant is injured due to the premises being in violation of code.
The Decision: Extending the Doctrine
In Scott v. Garfield, the Massachusetts high court extended the reach of the implied warranty of habitability from tenants to their guests and lawful visitors. The injured victim in the Scott case was a friend of the tenant helping out with a move when a defective second story porch railing gave way, sending him falling and seriously injuring his shoulder. The Court upheld a $450,000 jury verdict in the victim’s favor.
Impact: The downside for landlords who violate the implied warranty of habitability is that they cannot point the finger at tenants for their own carelessness. In legal terms, this means that the defense of “comparative negligence” is unavailable. The comparative negligence defense enables a judge or jury to attribute fault to each party in a personal injury case and reduce liability accordingly. This was a factor in the Scott case as the injured guest had been drinking a few beers during the move. The jury found him 20% at fault, which would have reduced his verdict by 20%, or $90,000. But without the benefit of the defense, the landlord was hit with the entire $450,000 verdict.
Take-Away: Check Your Porches and Your Liability Insurance
This case is yet another harsh reminder that all landlords must not only check their porches, stairways and railing for defects, but procure general liability insurance with sufficient coverage on rental property. I recommend at least $1 Million/person $2 Million/aggregate which would have covered this verdict entirely, plus paid for the attorneys.
Landlords, is your property up to code? Do you check your rails and stairways on a regular basis? Or is insurance the answer?
Did Attorney Vetstein talk someone out of becoming a landlord today? Or at least a landlord in Massachusetts?
