Pagelsdorf v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
284 N.W.2d 55, 91 Wis. 2d 734 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord must exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of the premises and is liable for injuries to tenants and their guests resulting from a breach of this duty. This rule abrogates the common law principle of general landlord immunity for defective premises.
Facts:
- Richard J. Mahnke owned a two-story duplex, living in the lower unit and renting the upper unit to the Blattner family under an oral lease where Mahnke agreed to make all necessary repairs.
- The upper unit had a back porch with a wooden railing that was deteriorating from dry rot.
- Mrs. Blattner testified that she had repeatedly warned Mahnke about the rotting railing and asked him to repair it.
- While the Blattners were moving out, they asked a neighbor, James Pagelsdorf, to help them move furniture.
- Pagelsdorf and one of Mrs. Blattner's brothers went onto the upper back porch to lower a heavy box spring to the ground.
- After they lowered the box spring, Pagelsdorf leaned against the railing, placing his hands on it.
- The railing section gave way due to the dry rot, causing Pagelsdorf to fall to the ground and sustain injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- James Pagelsdorf and his wife sued the landlord, Richard J. Mahnke, in the trial court for personal injuries.
- The trial court instructed the jury based on the common law rule that a possessor of land owes a licensee (Pagelsdorf's status) only a duty to warn of known hidden dangers.
- The jury found that Mahnke had no knowledge of the railing's defective condition and therefore was not negligent.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, dismissing the Pagelsdorfs' complaint.
- The Pagelsdorfs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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 owe a duty of ordinary care to a tenant's guest to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Callow, J.
Yes. A landlord is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of rental premises to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. The court abrogates the common law rule of landlord nonliability and its various exceptions, which was based on the outdated concept of a lease as a conveyance of land. The court reasons that modern social conditions, the evolution of the lease into a contract, and the recognition of an implied warranty of habitability are inconsistent with landlord immunity. It would be anomalous to require a landlord to keep premises habitable but immunize him from liability for injuries caused by his failure to do so. Therefore, landlord liability should be governed by general principles of negligence, where factors like control, notice, and the obviousness of a defect are relevant to determining whether the landlord exercised ordinary care under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from traditional common law landlord-tenant tort liability, replacing a rule of general immunity (riddled with exceptions) with a modern negligence standard. By abolishing the landlord's 'cloak of immunity,' the court aligned landlord liability with general tort principles that hold individuals responsible for foreseeable harm caused by their unreasonable conduct. This change simplifies the legal analysis in such cases, shifting the focus from categorical exceptions (like control or hidden defects) to a broader, fact-based inquiry into whether the landlord exercised ordinary care. The ruling substantially increases potential liability for landlords and provides greater protection for tenants and their guests.
Unlock the full brief for Pagelsdorf v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America