Opinion ID: 198474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Housing Codes Evidence

Text: 25 Drohan argues that, even given a finding that he was a trespasser, he still could have been the subject of wanton or willful injury, and therefore entitled to relief. He contends that the court improperly excluded the evidence that would have shown that defendants' behavior was wanton or willful. We review the exclusion of this evidence for abuse of discretion. See id. 26 To bolster his contention that the injury was wanton or willful, Drohan sought to introduce information about three housing codes--the Rhode Island State Building Code (the State Building Code), the Rhode Island Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code (the Occupancy Code), and the Providence Minimum Standards Housing Ordinance (the Providence Housing Ordinance)--into evidence. More importantly, he sought on direct examination to question Vaughn about his knowledge of these codes and whether he knowingly violated them. Drohan claims that if he could have shown that Vaughn knowingly violated the codes, Vaughn's behavior could have been construed as wanton or willful. 27 Even if Drohan could have shown a violation of the codes, we doubt that such a violation, standing alone, would be enough to show wanton or willful injury. But, at any rate, the district court's determination that the codes were inapplicable to the basement of the 10 Marcello Street building is amply supported by the evidence. 28 The State Building Code is only applicable to structures built after 1977, see R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-27.3-105.1, or to buildings which have been significantly altered since 1977, see id. at § 23-27.3-106.1--106.4. Drohan claims that the post-1977 conversion of the building from a two-apartment to a three-apartment building qualified the building under this statute. He suggests that any change in use to a property makes the building subject to the code, citing section 23-27.3-105.2. He misreads section 23-27.3-105.2, which only states that if a change in use makes the building subject to the code, certain procedures must be followed. See id. at § 23-27.3-105.2 (It shall be unlawful to make any change in the use or occupancy of any structure or part thereof which would subject it to provision of this code without the approval of the building officials ....) (emphasis added). Sections 23-27.3-106.1--106.4 dictate when a change makes a building subject to the code, and those sections distinctly state that an alteration must cost a certain percentage of the building's value in order to trigger the code's requirements for new structures. See, e.g., id. at § 23-27.3-106.1 (applying the code's requirements to any building in which alterations in excess of fifty percent of the physical value of the building have been made). Drohan provided no evidence that the alterations to the Marcello Street building cost a significant enough percentage of the building's value to trigger the State Building Code's requirements. 29 Although the Occupancy Code does apply to buildings erected before 1977, its provisions only relate to the portions of a building used or intended to be used for the purposes of a dwelling. See id. at § 45-24.3-4 (Applicability.--(a) Every portion of a building or its premises used or intended to be used for the purpose of dwelling, living, eating, sleeping, or cooking therein, or occupancy, shall comply with the provisions of this chapter....). The Occupancy Code defines dwelling as any enclosed space which is wholly or partly used or intended to be used for living or sleeping by human occupants.... Id. at § 45-24.3-5. Because the basement, which was off limits to tenants, does not fit the definition of a dwelling space, the Occupancy Code is inapplicable. 30 Finally, the Providence Housing Ordinance applies to all buildings, irrespective of when they were built. Drohan claims that defendants violated section 13-155 of this code. See Providence, R.I., Code of Municipal Ordinances, ch. 13, § 155 (requiring proper lighting for common stairways). Section 13-155, however, only applies to common stairways. See id. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has defined a common area, in another context, as a portion of the premises which is controlled by the landlord and used in common by the tenants. See Gormley v. Vartian, 121 R.I. 770, 403 A.2d 256, 261 (1979) (discussing a landlord's duty to maintain common areas). In this case, the basement stairway was not used in common by the tenants, and therefore is not governed by section 13-155. Similarly, Drohan's claim that section 13-185 of the Providence Housing Ordinance applies to the basement stairway is also incorrect. See Providence, R.I., Code of Municipal Ordinances, ch. 13, § 185 (stating that every stairway shall be kept in good repair). Section 13185 is a section of Article IX, which applies only to dwellings or dwelling units. See id. at ch. 13, § 182 (Compliance with article required. No person shall occupy as owner-occupant or permit to be occupied by another, any dwelling or dwelling unit which does not comply with the following requirements of this article.). The Providence Housing Ordinance defines dwelling as any building or part thereof which is wholly or partly used or intended to be used for living and sleeping by one or more occupants and dwelling unit as any room or group of rooms within a dwelling and forming a single and separate habitable unit. Id. at ch. 13, § 1. Thus, section 13-185 appears to be inapplicable to a non-dwelling space such as the basement in question. 31 Because none of the building codes applies to the basement of the Marcello Street property, the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence related to the codes. 8