Asper v. Haffley

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
458 A.2d 1364, 312 Pa. Super. 424, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2810 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landlord is subject to liability for physical harm caused to a tenant by a dangerous condition if the landlord has failed to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition and the condition constitutes a violation of the implied warranty of habitability.

Facts:

The defendant, Haffley, owned a building with a front office for his insurance business and a rear residential living area.
Haffley modified the building by removing doorways connecting the two sections and installing storm windows in the living area that could not be opened without breaking the glass.
In May 1976, Haffley leased the rear living area to John Asper, who moved in with his four daughters.
On September 8, 1976, a fire broke out in the apartment while one daughter, Joni Marie Asper, was the only person present.
The fire blocked the main exit, leaving the windows as the only means of escape.
Joni Marie Asper sustained bruises and cuts on her hands and arms, indicating she attempted to break through the sealed storm windows but failed.
Joni Marie Asper died of smoke inhalation as a result of being trapped in the burning apartment.

Procedural Posture:

The administratrix of the decedent's estate filed a lawsuit against the landlord in the Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
The plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to include a claim of strict liability under Restatement § 402A, which the trial court denied as untimely.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims.
The plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a landlord liable for the death of a tenant caused by a dangerous condition on the leased premises under theories of strict liability or negligence based on a breach of the implied warranty of habitability?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Price

Yes regarding negligence, but No regarding strict liability. The court first reasoned that the landlord could not be held strictly liable under the Fire and Panic Act because single-family dwellings do not fall under the statutory classifications of buildings regulated by the Act. Additionally, the court rejected the application of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (strict product liability) because the landlord was an insurance agent engaged in an isolated lease transaction, not in the 'business' of selling or leasing property. However, relying on the precedent of Pugh v. Holmes which established the implied warranty of habitability, the court adopted Restatement (Second) of Property § 17.6. The court held that a landlord is liable for physical harm resulting from a dangerous condition if they fail to exercise reasonable care to repair it and the condition violates the implied warranty of habitability.

Concurring - Judge Wieand

Yes regarding negligence, though the legal basis should be broader. Judge Wieand agreed that the case should be remanded for trial on negligence but argued that a tenant should not be required to prove a breach of the implied warranty of habitability to recover for personal injuries. He contended that general tort principles should apply independently, allowing a tenant to recover for injuries proximately caused by a landlord's failure to exercise reasonable care, regardless of whether a warranty claim is specifically established.

Analysis:

This case represents a significant shift in landlord-tenant law by actively expanding the remedies available to tenants for physical injuries. By adopting Section 17.6 of the Restatement (Second) of Property, the court bridged the gap between contract law (implied warranty of habitability) and tort law (negligence), effectively abolishing the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor ('let the buyer beware') in the context of residential leases. This ruling incentivizes landlords to maintain safe premises by imposing liability for physical harm caused by conditions that make a dwelling uninhabitable. It distinguishes, however, between professional landlords and those engaging in isolated transactions regarding strict liability, protecting casual lessors from the harsher standards of product liability law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Asper v. Haffley (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"