Lexplug logoLexplug

McCutcheon v. United Homes Corp.

The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc
486 P.2d 1093, 79 Wash. 2d 443 (1971)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An exculpatory clause in a residential lease that purports to immunize a landlord from liability for injuries to a tenant resulting from the landlord's own negligence in maintaining common areas is void as against public policy.


Facts:

  • Norma McCutcheon and Douglas R. Fuller were both tenants in apartment complexes owned by United Homes Corporation.
  • Both McCutcheon and Fuller signed a form 'Month to Month Rental Agreement' provided by United Homes.
  • The rental agreement contained an exculpatory clause stating that the lessor (United Homes) would not be liable for any injury to the lessee (the tenant) or any other person on the premises.
  • McCutcheon was injured when she fell down an unlighted flight of stairs in a common area of her apartment building.
  • Fuller was injured when a step on an outside common stairway pulled loose, causing him to fall.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff Norma McCutcheon filed a negligence lawsuit against defendant United Homes Corporation in a trial court.
  • Plaintiff Douglas R. Fuller filed a separate negligence lawsuit against defendant United Homes Corporation in a trial court.
  • In both cases, United Homes moved for summary judgment, arguing the exculpatory clause in the rental agreement barred the tenants' claims.
  • The trial court in each case granted summary judgment of dismissal in favor of United Homes Corporation.
  • The plaintiffs (McCutcheon and Fuller) appealed, and their cases were consolidated for the appeal.

Locked

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 an exculpatory clause in a residential lease agreement, which purports to absolve a landlord of liability for negligence in maintaining common areas, violate public policy?


Opinions:

Majority - Stafford, J.

Yes, such an exculpatory clause violates public policy. The common law imposes an affirmative duty on landlords to exercise reasonable care to keep common areas safe for tenants. A clause that exculpates a landlord from their own negligence in this regard effectively destroys this duty, which falls greatly below the standard of care established by law. The court rejected the argument that a residential lease is a purely private matter, reasoning that the modern reality of large-scale residential renting makes it a matter of public interest. Given the tenant's dependence on the landlord for the safety of common areas, sanctioning a clause that removes the landlord's incentive to be careful offends public policy and is therefore unenforceable.



Analysis:

This decision marks a significant departure from older contract-centric views, establishing tenant protection as a matter of public policy. It recognizes the unequal bargaining power inherent in the modern landlord-tenant relationship and the essential nature of safe housing. By voiding these exculpatory clauses in the residential context, the court prevents landlords from contractually eliminating their fundamental tort duty to maintain safe common areas. This precedent solidifies the landlord's non-waivable duty of care and influences how courts in other jurisdictions view the enforceability of standardized lease provisions that disadvantage tenants.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query McCutcheon v. United Homes Corp. (1971) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for McCutcheon v. United Homes Corp.