Also known as: warranty of habitability · implied warranty of habitability · implied warranties of habitability · habitability warranty
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An implied obligation imposed on residential landlords to maintain leased premises in a condition safe for human habitation and compliant with applicable housing codes. The obligation extends to conditions arising after the tenant takes possession when the landlord receives notice and fails to exercise reasonable care to repair. Breach of the obligation exposes the landlord to liability for resulting physical harm to the tenant and others lawfully on the premises.
Tara rented a condominium from Brightview Properties LLC. She reported recurring ceiling leaks multiple times. Brightview sent crews that patched drywall but never addressed the source in the mechanical room under its control. City inspectors cited code violations for water intrusion and mold. The ceiling later collapsed and injured Tara and her subtenant Luis.
Dana rented an apartment from the Metro Housing Authority. She repeatedly reported broken radiators and windows that would not close. The Authority delayed repairs citing budget constraints. During a cold snap the unit temperature dropped near freezing. Dana and a visiting child both suffered frostbite.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sun Outreach leased office space from Zachary for literacy programs. It notified Zachary repeatedly over six months about rodent and insect infestations that damaged books and deterred attendance. Zachary performed only one cursory extermination. The heating system also failed repeatedly, forcing event cancellations. Sun Outreach terminated the lease and relocated.
Mrs. Cooper leased commercial space from Reste Realty Corp. Rainwater flooded the interior through a defective exterior wall and foundation. The defect existed before the lease and was not reasonably apparent. Reste Realty knew of the condition but did not disclose it. Mrs. Cooper suffered repeated business interruptions from the flooding.
Tenants in a low-income housing development owned by Normet withheld rent after repeated code violations rendered units uninhabitable. Oregon statutes barred tenants from raising the landlord's breach of habitability duties as a defense in eviction actions. The tenants challenged the statutes as unconstitutional. The Court struck down the prohibition on habitability defenses.
Tenants in an apartment complex owned by IRM Corp. suffered injuries from lead paint and asbestos in their units. They sued for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and strict liability. IRM moved for summary adjudication claiming it could not be held strictly liable for defective conditions. The court denied the motion and allowed the strict liability claim to proceed.
No. The warranty covers dangerous conditions that arise after the tenant takes possession. A landlord remains subject to liability when it receives notice of a code-violating defect and fails to exercise reasonable care to repair it.
No. Liability arises from the implied warranty and housing code duties independent of lease terms allocating repair responsibilities. The landlord must still exercise reasonable care to correct known, code-violating conditions.
Yes. The landlord's duty runs to the tenant and to others on the premises with the tenant's consent. A code-violating defect that injures both the tenant and a lawful visitor supports liability to each.
Yes. When the landlord's failure to remedy infestations or heating failures constitutes a material breach, the tenant may terminate and recover reasonable moving, cleaning, and comparable relocation expenses under the damages framework for lease termination.
…A modern urban tenant's leasehold often includes not only contractual, but also statutory, rights, including the rights to an implied warranty of habitability, rent control, and such services as the landlord is obliged by statute to provide. Cf. n. 7, supra. [^maj-32]: Happily, the Court leaves open the question whether § 828 provides…