Borders v. Roseberry

Supreme Court of Kansas
532 P.2d 1366, 216 Kan. 486 (1975)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landlord is generally not liable to a tenant's social guest for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on the leased premises that existed at the time of the lease, especially when both the landlord and the tenant were aware of the defect.

Facts:

Agnes Roseberry owned a single-family house which she leased to a tenant, Rienecker, on a month-to-month basis.
Prior to the tenancy, repairmen hired by Roseberry removed the roof guttering from the front of the house and failed to reinstall it.
The missing gutter caused rainwater to drain onto the front porch steps, where it would accumulate and freeze in cold weather.
Both Roseberry and her tenant, Rienecker, knew the guttering was missing and were aware of the resulting hazard of icy steps.
Rienecker had complained to Roseberry about the missing guttering and the icy steps it created.
On January 9, 1971, Gary D. Borders was a social guest for dinner at the invitation of the tenant, Rienecker.
Upon leaving the house at 9:00 p.m., Borders slipped on an accumulation of ice on the front steps and sustained personal injuries.

Procedural Posture:

Gary D. Borders sued the landlord, Agnes Roseberry, in the trial court for personal injuries.
The case was tried to the court without a jury.
The trial court found in favor of the defendant, Roseberry, concluding as a matter of law that she had no duty to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Borders, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Kansas.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Does a landlord of a single-family house have a legal duty to a tenant's social guest to repair a known, dangerous condition that existed at the time of the lease, when the tenant was also fully aware of the condition?

Opinions:

Majority - Prager, J.

No. A landlord of a single-family house is under no obligation to a social guest of his tenant to repair a known condition when the tenant also has knowledge of the defect. The general rule is that a lessor is not liable for defective conditions existing at the time of the lease because, upon leasing, the lessee acquires an estate in the land and becomes the owner for the term, assuming the responsibilities of one in possession. The court analyzed the six recognized exceptions to this rule of non-liability and found that none applied. The 'undisclosed dangerous conditions' exception did not apply because the condition was patent and known to the tenant. Other exceptions related to public use, common areas, or a contract to repair were factually inapplicable. Finally, the exception for negligent repairs did not apply because liability under that exception arises only if the tenant does not know the repairs were made negligently or incompletely; here, the tenant was fully aware the guttering had not been reinstalled. Since no exception applied, the general rule of landlord non-liability was upheld.

Analysis:

This case reaffirms the traditional common law doctrine of landlord non-liability for defects existing at the time of a lease, placing the burden of maintaining safe premises on the tenant as the possessor of the property. The decision illustrates a strict application of the well-established exceptions to this rule, refusing to expand landlord liability where the tenant's knowledge of a patent defect is undisputed. This holding reinforces that a tenant's awareness of a hazard can effectively sever the landlord's liability to third parties, as the landlord can reasonably expect the tenant in possession to take precautions or warn guests.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Borders v. Roseberry (1975)

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

Premium Feature