Sikora v. Wenzel
88 Ohio St. 3d 493 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's violation of a statutory duty, such as a building code, constitutes negligence per se. However, the landlord may be excused from liability if they neither knew nor should have known of the factual circumstances that caused the violation.
Facts:
- Wenzel was a landlord of a property that had a deck with a defective condition.
- The defective condition was a violation of the Ohio Basic Building Code (OBBC).
- Prior to Wenzel's involvement with the property, the City had issued the necessary approval documents for the deck despite having failed to properly inspect it.
- Wenzel was not involved in the construction or initial certification of the deck.
- Wenzel had no reason to question the validity of the City's certification and neither knew nor should have known about the deck's defective condition.
- Sikora sustained injuries as a result of the deck's defect.
Procedural Posture:
- Sikora sued Wenzel for injuries sustained from a defective deck.
- The case was heard by a court of appeals, which held that the landlord, Wenzel, was strictly liable for the violation of the statute, regardless of his lack of notice of the defect.
- Wenzel, as appellant, appealed the appellate court's decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
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's lack of actual or constructive notice of a building code violation excuse them from liability under the doctrine of negligence per se?
Opinions:
Majority - Cook, J.
No, a landlord's lack of notice serves as a legal excuse for a statutory violation that constitutes negligence per se. The court distinguished between strict liability (liability without fault), negligence per se (where breach of duty is established by a statutory violation but excuses are permitted), and evidence of negligence. The court determined that the statute requiring landlords to comply with building codes (R.C. 5321.04(A)(1)) is specific enough to establish negligence per se, not just evidence of negligence. However, the statute lacks language suggesting the legislature intended to impose strict liability, which would eliminate all defenses. Adopting the Restatement of Torts 2d, the court held that a statutory violation can be excused. One such excuse is when the actor 'neither knows nor should know' of the circumstances causing the violation. Because it was undisputed that Wenzel had no actual or constructive notice of the deck's defect, his violation is legally excused, and he is not liable.
Concurring - Resnick, J.
No, a landlord is not liable in the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of a latent defect. To hold otherwise would make the landlord an insurer of the safety of others, which is contrary to basic legal principles. It is hornbook law that a landlord cannot be held liable for a defect they did not and could not know about.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of landlord liability in Ohio by firmly rejecting a strict liability standard for statutory violations. It establishes that while violating a specific safety statute like a building code is negligence per se, this is a rebuttable presumption. By explicitly recognizing lack of notice as a legal excuse, the court balances the protective purpose of landlord-tenant safety statutes with the practical reality that landlords cannot be aware of every latent defect. This holding protects landlords from liability for hidden defects they could not reasonably discover, thereby preventing them from becoming insurers of their property.
Unlock the full brief for Sikora v. Wenzel