Opinion ID: 1981544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Violations of Administrative Regulations

Text: By applying the doctrine of an implied warranty to the activities of landlords, the judiciary in New Jersey joins other branches of government in recognizing that the legitimate interests and expectations of residential tenants are not fully articulated by the terms of a lease agreement. Perceiving a critical shortage of [rental] housing    and that tenants, trapped by the fact, are being exploited, Inganamort v. Bor. of Fort Lee, 62 N.J. at 527, many local governments have adopted rent control ordinances to prevent unregulated economic forces from depriving their citizens of decent shelter. The Legislature's concern with the habitability of rental dwellings extends over three-quarters of a century, beginning in 1904 with the enactment of the Tenement House Act, L. 1904, c. 61, Comp.Stat. 5321-5355 (1910). Through all its successive amendments, see, e.g., R.S. 55:1-1 et seq. (1937), it has come to constitute comprehensive legislation intended to assure safe habitation, and it places responsibility where the Legislature has concluded it belongs  with the landlord. Michaels, 26 N.J. at 386; see Braitman, 68 N.J. at 383 & n. 10. In Michaels, this Court considered the effect of the Tenement House Act upon the landlord's tort liability. We held that the duty to repair imposed by the statute did not merely cover common areas of an apartment building, or such parts as may be in the landlord's control, actual, attenuated or fictional.   Rather the duty to maintain in good repair embrace[d] `all parts' which the landlord in fact provide[d]. 26 N.J. at 386-387. The Court interpreted the broad injunction of the statute as establishing a standard of conduct for landlords and a cause of action in negligence for its violation. Id. at 386. The Tenement House Act was superceded by the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Health and Safety Law of 1967, L. 1967, c. 76, now known as the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law, N.J.S.A. 55:13A-1 et seq. The new act provides stronger and more detailed measures than the former statute for the protection of tenants. See Braitman, 68 N.J. at 383; N.J.S.A. 55:13A-2. Most significant is the Legislature's delegation of power to the State Commissioner of Community Affairs to promulgate comprehensive and detailed regulations concerning the condition of a multiple dwelling. N.J.S.A. 55:13A-7. This delegation entrusts the commissioner with the responsibility of assuring decent, standard and safe rental housing throughout the state. N.J.S.A. 55:13A-2. The law requires that the regulations cover 22 separate, enumerated components of a building. See N.J.S.A. 55:13A-7(a)-(v). These standards and specifications represent the commissioner's expert judgment that the given safeguards are reasonably necessary to the health, safety and welfare of the occupants or intended occupants of any    multiple dwelling. N.J.S.A. 55:13A-7. The regulations therefore define with the force of law, see N.J.S.A. 55:13A-7, -9(a), the minimum standards for safety and habitability in multiple dwellings. N.J.S.A. 55:13A-3(k) (defining multiple dwellings). See N.J.S.A. 55:13A-9(b). In Braitman we noted that the violation of a statutory duty of care is not conclusive on the issue of negligence   but it is a circumstance which the trier of fact should consider in assessing liability. 68 N.J. at 385. It is entirely appropriate in an action to establish civil liability to consider the landlord's statutory and administrative responsibilities to his tenants to furnish habitable residential premises. As we stated in Michaels, 26 N.J. at 386, and reiterated in Braitman, 68 N.J. at 383-386, the statutory and regulatory scheme governing the habitability of multifamily dwellings establishes a standard of conduct for landlords. It is thus available as evidence for determining the duty owed by landlords to tenants. Defendant's eight-unit building was a multiple dwelling subject to the requirements of the regulations. [6] Regulation 602.3(f)(2)(i) of the Regulations for the Construction and Maintenance of Motels and Multiple Dwellings effective July 19, 1968, provided that [b]uilding entrance doors and exterior exit doors shall be equipped with heavy duty lock sets. [7] The absence of a lock at the time of Mrs. Trentacost's assault was contrary to the Legislature's standard of care. Since the violation was clearly established it constitutes evidence of defendant's negligence.