698 P.2d 116 (Cal. 1985)
In 1974, IRM Corporation acquired a 36-unit apartment complex that had been built in 1962 and 1963.1 George Becker later leased one of the apartments in the complex.2 On November 21, 1978, Becker slipped and fell against the frosted glass shower door in his apartment; the door was made of untempered glass, broke on impact, and severely lacerated his arm.3
Prior to the acquisition, two IRM officers walked through most of the apartments and observed that all shower doors were of frosted glass and appeared identical.4 From acquisition until the 1978 accident, IRM received no reports of accidents involving the shower doors and was not advised that any were made of untempered glass.5 After the accident, IRM learned that 31 of the 36 shower doors were untempered; its maintenance man replaced them and stated that the only way to differentiate the glass types was by a very small mark in the corner of each piece, which was not visible upon ordinary inspection.6
Becker sued IRM for personal injury, asserting causes of action for strict liability and negligence.7 IRM moved for summary judgment.8 Becker filed no opposing affidavits. The trial court granted summary judgment and denied reconsideration.9 While the case was pending, Becker settled with the builder and a door assembler and installer for $150,000 plus an additional $50,000 contingent on the outcome against remaining defendants.10
Whether a landlord engaged in the business of leasing dwellings is strictly liable in tort for injuries resulting from a latent defect in the premises existing at the time the premises were let to the tenant?11
A landlord engaged in the business of leasing dwellings is strictly liable in tort for injuries resulting from a latent defect in the premises when the defect existed at the time the premises were let to the tenant.12 The court follows a stream of commerce approach to strict liability in tort.13 This extends liability to all participants in the overall producing and marketing enterprise that should bear the cost of injuries from defective products.14 The landlord makes an implied representation of habitability and safety.15 The tenant relies on that representation and lacks the ability to inspect for latent defects.16 The landlord is better positioned to spread the costs through insurance, rent adjustment, or indemnity.17
Yes. IRM Corporation was engaged in the business of leasing dwellings as owner of the 36-unit apartment complex acquired in 1974.18 The door was made of untempered glass.19 The affidavits established that the defect was not visible upon ordinary inspection and could only be detected by a very small mark in the corner of the glass.20
Becker suffered severe lacerations when he slipped and fell against the door on November 21, 1978.21 IRM played a substantial role in the rental housing enterprise by acquiring and marketing the units to tenants who could not realistically inspect for such hidden dangers.22 IRM could adjust rents or obtain insurance to cover the costs rather than leaving the injured tenant powerless to protect himself.23
The trial court therefore erred in granting summary judgment on the strict liability cause of action.24
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mosk, J.
Justice Lucas concurs in the negligence holding but dissents from the imposition of strict liability.25 He maintains that a subsequent purchaser of used property who neither installed nor created the defective item and who lacks actual or constructive knowledge of the defect should not be held strictly liable.26 Lucas emphasizes that landlords of used property have no continuing business relationship with the original manufacturer or distributor that would allow cost adjustment up the chain, unlike retailers or lessors of personalty.27
The risk-spreading rationale alone does not justify extending strict liability to every component in a building.28 He would affirm summary judgment on the strict liability claim while joining the reversal on negligence.29
Whether a landlord owes a tenant a duty of reasonable care to inspect for latent dangerous conditions in the rented premises at the time of purchase and letting?30
A landlord owes a tenant a duty of reasonable care in providing and maintaining the rented premises in a safe condition.31 This duty includes inspecting for dangerous conditions that would be disclosed by a reasonable inspection at the time of purchase and letting.32 The foreseeability of harm from latent defects is high.33 The policy of preventing future harm and the availability of insurance support imposing the duty without unduly burdening the landlord.34
Yes. IRM Corporation owed Becker a duty of reasonable care to inspect the shower doors for latent dangerous conditions at the time it purchased the complex in 1974 and when letting the apartment.35 The dangerous condition of the untempered glass existed at purchase and at the time of the lease.36 Although IRM officers walked through most apartments and observed only frosted glass with no visible difference, the maintenance man's affidavit revealed a very small mark that could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection focused on safety.37
No prior accidents had occurred, yet the substantial risk of serious injury from defective glass doors was reasonably foreseeable.38 Civil Code section 1954 does not bar the duty because it permits entry to exhibit units to prospective purchasers and to make repairs.39 The absence of actual knowledge does not preclude liability when a reasonable inspection would have revealed the danger.40
The trial court therefore erred in granting summary judgment on the negligence cause of action.41
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Bird concurs in the judgment and adopts the Court of Appeal opinion.42 The opinion emphasizes that a landlord owes a tenant a duty of reasonable care to maintain the rented premises in a safe condition.43 She stresses that foreseeability of harm from the unsafe shower doors presented a triable issue of fact even without actual notice.44
The danger was discoverable upon reasonably careful inspection.45 The landlord's control over the premises and ability to insure against risk support leaving the question for the jury.46 Bird agrees that the landlord is not an insurer.47
She concludes that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the negligence claim.48