Mansur v. Eubanks
401 So. 2d 1328 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord of a residential dwelling has a duty to reasonably inspect the premises for hidden defects and to make the repairs necessary to transfer a reasonably safe dwelling unit to the tenant. This duty replaces the common law doctrine of caveat lessee (let the tenant beware) in the residential lease context.
Facts:
- In mid-July 1976, Marie Grigsby paid a deposit to Jean M. Barnett and Mary G. Eubanks to lease an apartment.
- The oral agreement stipulated that the lease term would commence on August 1, 1976.
- On July 31, 1976, the day before the lease was to begin, Grigsby began moving her possessions into the apartment.
- Michael Mansur, who lived in an adjacent apartment also owned by Barnett and Eubanks, was helping Grigsby.
- In an attempt to make the gas-fueled appliances operational, Grigsby and Mansur opened the main gas line from outside the apartment.
- They smelled gas while attempting to light the stove.
- Mansur then struck a match to light the water heater, which triggered an explosion.
- Mansur was seriously injured as a result of the explosion.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Mansur and Marie Grigsby sued landlords Mary Eubanks and Jean Barnett, along with their insurer, in a Florida trial court for negligence.
- The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the landlords/defendants.
- Mansur and Grigsby, as appellants, appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the landlords/appellees.
- The Supreme Court of Florida granted certiorari to review the decision based on a conflict with another district court of appeal decision.
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 residential dwelling have a duty to inspect the premises and repair dangerous conditions before a tenant takes possession, thereby abrogating the doctrine of caveat lessee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Boyd
Yes. A landlord of a residential dwelling unit has a duty to reasonably inspect the premises before allowing a tenant to take possession and must make necessary repairs to transfer a reasonably safe unit. The court explicitly overrules the precedent of Brooks v. Peters, which applied the doctrine of caveat lessee to insulate landlords from liability once a tenant took possession. The court reasons that the complexities of modern housing place the landlord in a much better position than the tenant to guard against dangerous conditions. Additionally, the court holds that after a tenant takes possession, the landlord has a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care to repair dangerous defective conditions upon receiving notice from the tenant.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from the common law doctrine of caveat lessee in Florida for residential leases. It imposes an affirmative duty of care on landlords to ensure their properties are safe at the inception of the lease, reflecting a modern trend that recognizes the unequal bargaining power and knowledge between landlords and tenants. The ruling shifts the burden of discovering and remedying latent defects from the tenant to the landlord, increasing potential landlord liability for negligence and aligning property law with modern tort principles.
