Propper v. Kesner

Supreme Court of Florida
104 So. 2d 1 (1958)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landlord who covenants to make repairs and reserves exclusive control over an appliance may be held liable for injuries to a tenant resulting from a defect after the landlord receives notice and provides negligent assurances of the appliance's safety upon which the tenant relies.

Facts:

Selma and Irving Propper (the Proppers) leased an apartment from Philip Kesner and others (the Kesners), which included a gas stove.
The Kesners instructed the Proppers not to attempt any repairs on appliances themselves but to report any issues to the manager, who would handle them.
During the month prior to the incident, Selma Propper experienced difficulty lighting the stove's broiler.
Selma Propper reported this difficulty to the apartment manager and one of the owners.
The Kesners assured Selma Propper that the stove was safe, that its operation was normal, and gave her instructions on how to light it.
Relying on these assurances and following the instructions, Selma Propper attempted to light the stove on October 2, 1954.
Approximately two minutes after she lit the burner and closed the oven door, the stove exploded, causing her injury.

Procedural Posture:

Selma and Irving Propper sued Philip Kesner and the other owners in a Florida trial court for personal injuries.
At the conclusion of the Proppers' case-in-chief at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
The trial court granted the defendants' motion, finding the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict for the plaintiffs.
The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants (the Kesners).
The plaintiffs (the Proppers) appealed the final judgment to the Supreme Court of Florida.

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 who covenants to make repairs, reserves control over an appliance, and receives notice of a potential defect have a duty of care to a tenant that can lead to liability for injuries when the landlord fails to repair and instead provides assurances of the appliance's safety?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Hobson

Yes. A landlord may be held liable under these circumstances. The court adopts the modern view that a landlord can be liable for nonperformance of a covenant to repair (nonfeasance), not just for negligent performance (misfeasance). In this case, the landlords' specific instruction that tenants were not to perform repairs but must report defects to management constituted a reservation of control over the appliance. Once notified of the defect, the landlords' election not to repair, but instead to give assurances of safety and instructions for use, created a basis upon which a jury could find them liable for the tenant's resulting injuries. Furthermore, whether the tenant assumed the risk is a question for the jury, as she may have reasonably relied on the landlords' assurances of safety, which she could have believed were based on their superior knowledge.

Analysis:

This decision officially aligns Florida law with the modern trend and the Restatement of Torts, § 357, by holding landlords liable for injuries resulting from the failure to perform a covenant to repair. It moves away from the older common law rule that immunized landlords for nonfeasance. The case also provides a functional definition of 'reservation of control,' extending it beyond physical access to include contractual prohibitions on tenant repairs. This precedent significantly enhances tenant protections by imposing a clearer duty of care on landlords who agree to maintain the premises, making it more difficult for them to evade liability by remaining passive after being notified of a dangerous condition.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Propper v. Kesner (1958)

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

Premium Feature