Opinion ID: 901602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Landlord duties under statute or ordinance

Text: The violation of a statute or ordinance, designed for the benefit of individuals, is of itself sufficient to prove such a breach of duty as will sustain an action for negligence brought by a person within the protected class if other elements of negligence concur. The statute or ordinance becomes the standard of care or the rule of the ordinarily careful and prudent person. McCleod v. Tri-State Milling Co., 71 SD 362, 366-367, 24 NW2d 485, 487 (1946). See also, Alley v. Siepman, 87 SD 670, 214 NW2d 7 (1974); Albers v. Ottenbacher, 79 SD 637, 116 NW2d 529 (1962). [¶18.] Hendrix claimed numerous sources of statutory duty before the circuit court. In its memorandum decision the circuit court addressed each of her claimed sources of duty. Hendrix has not asked this Court to review the circuit court's decisions regarding all of the potential sources of statutory duty that she raised. Instead, she has asked this Court to consider only two of those potential sources of statutory duty. We will confine our review to those two sources. [¶19.] First, Hendrix contends that her lease with Schulte obligated him to bring his property into compliance with the federal regulations regarding the Section 8 program. The actual language of that lease is quoted earlier in this decision. The lease required him to make repairs necessary to maintain the property in compliance with applicable Housing Quality Standards. [¶20.] The Housing Quality Standards are set forth at 24 CFR § 982.401. Each rental property must meet performance requirements and acceptability criteria. Stairs are covered under subsection (g) which relates to Structure and materials. The performance requirements explain that: [t]he dwelling unit must be structurally sound. The structure must not present any threat to the health and safety of the occupants and must protect the occupants from the environment. The acceptability criteria explain that: [t]he condition and equipment of interior and exterior stairs, halls, porches, walkways, etc., must not present a danger of tripping and falling. For example, broken or missing steps or loose boards are unacceptable. [¶21.] Rick Kruse inspected the house on January 11, 2002, less than two months before Hendrix's accident. Kruse is an evaluator with the Sioux Falls Housing and Redevelopment Commission, the federal government's Section 8 inspector. In an inspection letter provided to both Schulte and Hendrix, Kruse determined that the house was found to meet HUD's Housing Quality Standards. (emphasis added). His letter included a list of three items you should be aware of. Item number two was, repair, or replace, the second floor stairs handrail. Schulte was not required to address the items on the list in order for the property to meet the Housing Quality Standards. Instead, the inspection form noted that those comments were intended to: (a) establish the precondition of the unit, (b) indicate possible additional areas to negotiate with the owner, (c) aid in assessing the reasonableness of the rent of the unit, and (d) aid the tenant in deciding among possible units to be rented. The tenant is responsible for deciding whether he or she finds these conditions acceptable. [¶22.] If stairs were broken, Schulte was obligated to replace them. If a handrail was broken or removed, Schulte was obligated to replace it. Neither the performance requirements nor the acceptability criteria required Schulte to install a handrail where one had never existed. [¶23.] Second, Hendrix relies on a Sioux Falls ordinance that adopted the International Residential Code (IRC). By its own terms, existing structures need not comply with the IRC except under very specific circumstances. Section R102.7 of the IRC provides: The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public. (emphasis added). Section R102.7.1 of the IRC reads: Additions, alterations, or repairs to any structure shall conform to that required for a new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all of the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated. [¶24.] It was undisputed that this house was constructed in the 1930s. There was no evidence of any permit for additions, alterations, or repairs at any point in time. There was no evidence that tended to show that the house had ever been subject to any additions, alterations, or repairs that would have triggered IRC § R102.7.1. [¶25.] Section R103.1 of the IRC defines building official as the official in charge of the department of building safety for the City of Sioux Falls. That person was Ron Bell. There was no evidence that Ron Bell, or anyone working for him, ever inspected the house or received any complaints about the house. There was no evidence that Ron Bell, or anyone working for him, ever deemed it necessary for Schulte to bring this house into compliance with the requirements of the IRC. [¶26.] There were no material issues of fact in dispute regarding duty. Based on the undisputed facts, the circuit court correctly concluded that Hendrix did not establish any statutory or common law duty that required Schulte to install a handrail where none had been previously installed. [¶27.] We affirm. [¶28.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur. [¶29.] MYREN, Circuit Judge, for SABERS, Justice, disqualified.