The parties do not dispute the material facts. Therefore, we must determine whether the undisputed facts entitle defendant to judgment as a matter of law. Lane Transit District v. To answer that question, we must construe several provisions of the 1991 version of the RLTA, the version of the act in effect at the time of the events in question. Our task is to discern the legislature's intent.
Case law interpreting the statute also is considered at our first level of analysis.
If the legislature's intent is clear based on a textual and contextual inquiry, further analysis is unnecessary. This court has stated that the RLTA, which the legislature enacted in 1973, was intended to clarify and restate the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords. We must determine whether those two statutes required that landlords be held liable for habitability violations, even if they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the violation. That statute is unambiguous. Nor does it refer to 'noncompliance after notice from the tenant' or 'noncompliance when the landlord knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known' of the nonhabitable condition.