Landlord appeals from a judgment in favor of his former tenant finding that landlord violated the implied warranty of habitability when heavy snow and ice fell from the roof of tenant’s residence onto her parking place, destroying her car. We hold that the implied warranty of habitability does not protect tenant’s automobile and therefore reverse.
The warranty of habitability promises that the landlord “will deliver over and maintain, throughout the period of the tenancy, premises that are safe, clean and fit for human habitation.” 9 V.S.A. § 4457 (a); Hilder, 144 Vt. at 159, 478 A.2d at 208.. No jurisdiction extends the warranty of habitability beyond essential sanitation and tenant safety. The warranty does not extend to loss of personal property.
In Favreau v. Miller, we declined to extend the implied warranty of habitability to personal injuries. 156 Vt. 222, 591 A.2d 68 (1991). Favreau recognized that remedies at law already exist for personal injuries and that “the concepts of tort and negligence law provide the more straightforward way to describe the respective duties and liabilities of the parties.” Id. at 229, 591 A.2d at 73. We specifically declined to “do away” with the principles of tort-based claims for bodily injury in favor of recovery of all damages stemming from a breach of lease regardless of fault. Id. at 230, 591 A.2d at 73.
The precepts of Favreau are applicable here. Claims for personal injury or property damage sound in tort, typically in an action for negligent breach of a duty of care, and depend on comparative degrees of fault. The Restatement confirms that, in addition to a breach of the implied warranty of habitability, a tenant must show the landlord “failed to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition,” a negligence standard. Restatement (Second) of Property: Landlord and Tenant § 17.6.
Plaintiff did not plead negligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment