Tassin v. Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc.
396 So. 2d 1261 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Even when a lease agreement contains a clause exculpating the lessor from liability for property damage caused by defects, the lessor remains liable if they knew or should have known of the defect that caused the damage.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Byron Tassin and Jacqueline Carr each entered into identical warehouse lease agreements with Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc. for storage units 16 and 15, respectively.
- Each lease agreement contained a provision stating that the 'Warehouseman shall not be responsible for any such losses, whatsoever,' including those caused by 'water,' and that insurance was the depositor's option and expense.
- Mr. Tassin and Mr. Carr testified that they read the contracts in their entirety, including the insurance clause, but did not obtain insurance on their stored goods.
- Plaintiffs moved furniture and related items into their respective units for storage.
- Upon opening their units on or about March 11, 1977, plaintiffs discovered them to be very damp, with most stored items mildewed and discolored, and some items sitting in two to three inches of water in the back of the units.
- The overhead doors on units 15 and 16 did not close flush with the concrete slab flooring, leaving a gap of about one-fourth inch, and the concrete slabs of these units sloped toward the back.
- While there was considerable rainfall and thunderstorms during the three weeks prior to March 11, 1977, weather conditions were not unusual for that time of year in southeast Louisiana.
- Mr. Tiblier, one of the owners of Slidell Mini-Storage, testified that he had never received any complaints of water damage from any tenants either before or after the commencement of this lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. and Mrs. Byron Tassin and Jacqueline Carr instituted an action for damages in the state trial court against Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc., Sidney Tiblier III, Rodney Zeringue, Aetna Insurance Company, Stovall Construction Company, and Overhead Door Company.
- The trial judge found the damage to the goods was caused by water from defective units and held Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc. liable to plaintiffs despite the exculpatory clause, reasoning that the owners knew or should have known of the defects, and rendered judgment in favor of the Tassins and Carr.
- The trial judge further dismissed all third-party demands.
- Slidell Mini-Storage, Inc. and Aetna Insurance Company (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment.
- The court of appeal reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the exculpatory clause precluded liability and that there was no evidence Slidell Mini-Storage knew or should have known of the alleged defect.
- Plaintiffs (applicants), Mr. and Mrs. Byron Tassin and Jacqueline Carr, applied for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which was granted.
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 contractual waiver of a lessor's liability for property damage due to a defect in leased premises, permitted by La.R.S. 9:3221, relieve the lessor of responsibility if the lessor knew or should have known of the defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus
No, a contractual waiver of a lessor's liability for property damage due to a defect in leased premises does not relieve the lessor of responsibility if the lessor knew or should have known of the defect. The court found that the damage to plaintiffs' property was caused by water entering the units due to structural defects: the doors did not close properly, and the concrete floor sloped to the rear. Although the lease agreement contained a clear exculpatory clause, transferring liability for water damage to the lessees, La.R.S. 9:3221 permits an owner to shift responsibility for premises conditions to the lessee unless the owner knew or should have known of the defect. The court concluded that it should have been obvious to the owners that, given the non-flush doors and sloped flooring, water would enter and accumulate in the units during normal rainfall. Therefore, despite the lessees' contractual assumption of responsibility, the owners/lessors were not relieved of their liability under La.Civ.Code art. 2695 because they should have known of the defects.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limitations of exculpatory clauses in lease agreements under Louisiana law, particularly concerning a lessor's knowledge of defects. While La.R.S. 9:3221 allows lessors to contractually shift responsibility for premises defects to lessees, this shift is not absolute. The decision reinforces that lessors cannot evade liability for defects they knew or should have known about, even if the lease explicitly attempts to do so. This ruling has significant implications for property owners and landlords, encouraging them to maintain their premises and address obvious defects to avoid liability, regardless of lease terms.
