Opinion ID: 1057854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The VRLTA

Text: Steward's second basis for asserting that the Landlords had a tort duty to maintain the properties in compliance with BOCA is that such duty was imposed on the Landlords by the VRLTA, in Code § 55-248.13(A)(1). That subsection states that the landlord shall [c]omply with the requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety. We have previously rejected this argument in Isbell, 273 Va. at 614-15, 644 S.E.2d at 76. In Isbell, the tenant argued that the VRLTA abrogated the common law and provided a statutory cause of action in tort allowing a tenant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a landlord's violation of the statutory duties to `[c]omply with the requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety'.... 273 Va. at 612, 644 S.E.2d at 74. In response to this argument we held that in enacting the VRLTA the General Assembly did not abrogate the common law rule that the landlord is not liable in tort for failure to repair premises under the control of a tenant. Id. at 614, 644 S.E.2d at 76. Included in the factors we relied on in reaching this conclusion were the comments to the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, which state that the counterpart to Code § 55-248.13(A)(1) follows the warranty of habitability doctrine. Id. at 615, 644 S.E.2d at 76. That warranty is a contract duty, not a duty grounded in tort. The unequivocal holding of Isbell is that the VRLTA imposed contractual duties on landlords but it did not impose a tort duty on landlords with regard to the responsibility to maintain and repair leased premises under the enjoyment and control of the lessee. Id. Therefore, the VRLTA provides no basis for a negligence per se claim. Steward nevertheless argues that Isbell is distinguishable and does not resolve this case. We find unpersuasive Steward's arguments in support of his position. Steward asserts that the plaintiff in Isbell claimed a cause of action based on violation of the VRLTA, not a negligence per se action. This is a distinction without a difference. As recited above, to proceed with a negligence per se action, a plaintiff must first establish a duty based in tort. In Isbell, this Court clearly rejected the proposition that the VRLTA abrogated the common law and created a tort duty on landlords subject to the VRLTA. If the duty was not created, it cannot supply the duty of care required for a negligence per se cause of action. Steward next points to footnote 2 in Isbell, which states that the issue whether a landlord's breach of statutory duties imposed by the [VRLTA could] form the basis of a common law claim for negligence per se was not before the Court in the appeal. Id. at 611 n. 2, 644 S.E.2d at 74 n. 2. That footnote, however, does nothing more than say that a claim based on common law negligence per se is not addressed because such a claim was not part of the appeal. It does not state or imply that the holding of Isbell would not be applicable to a claim of common law negligence per se if that claim were before the Court. More importantly, Steward has not pled a claim of common law negligence per se here. His negligence per se claim is based on allegations of contractually assumed duties and statutorily imposed duties, not common law duties. Finally, Steward argues that applying Isbell to conclude that the VRLTA does not provide the requisite statutory basis for his claim creates an inconsistency with prior cases setting out the elements of a negligence per se claim. Steward relies primarily upon McGuire and Kaltman v. All Am. Pest Control, Inc., 281 Va. 483, 706 S.E.2d 864 (2011), arguing that these cases stand for the proposition that the statutes at issue there provided the duty of care as well as the standard of care applicable to the duty. To be consistent with these cases, Steward asserts, requires the conclusion that the VRLTA establishes the requisite tort duty to support a negligence per se claim. Steward's argument, in sum, is that McGuire and Kaltman reversed the long-standing rule that an applicable duty of care must be shown in a negligence case and created a new rule that a statute setting a standard of care also creates the duty of care. We disagree. Neither McGuire, nor Kaltman, nor any other case cited by Steward, stands for the legal proposition that Steward advances. The existence of a duty of care running from the tortfeasor to the injured party was not at issue in either McGuire or Kaltman. The statutes at issue in both cases set the standard of care for compliance with a duty of care the tortfeasors owed the injured party. In McGuire, the property owner had a common law duty to maintain her premises, including the swimming pool on her property, safe for invitees. The statute in question, section 616.9 of the National Building Code of 1984, and section 22-4 of the Botetourt County Code, established the standard of care for property owners with swimming pools on their property. The property owner in McGuire was found negligent per se and liable in tort due to an injury proximately caused by her failure to comply with the standard of care established by the National Building Code of 1984 and the county code, which required owners of property on which a swimming pool is located to erect and maintain a fence and self-latching gate of a certain height around the pool to make the body of water inaccessible from the outside of the gate to small children. Id. at 203, 639 S.E.2d at 286. In Kaltman, as in this case, the trial court granted a demurrer to pleadings claiming causes of action based on negligence and negligence per se. In reversing the trial court's judgment, we held that a cause of action was sufficiently pled. The pleadings in that case included an allegation that the defendants had a common law duty to exercise the skill and diligence of a reasonably prudent pest control technician in the application of pesticides to the Kaltmans' home. The Kaltmans alleged that the defendants breached this duty by applying a pesticide that was inconsistent with its labeling in violation of former Code § 3.1-249.64(A)(1994). Kaltman, 281 Va. at 495-98, 706 S.E.2d at 871-73. Finally, even if we were to accept Steward's position that the statutes setting the standard of care in McGuire and Kaltman also created the duty of care, which we do not, those cases would not require a similar finding in this case. As noted above, we have already held that the VRLTA does not create a duty of care based in tort on a landlord subject to the VRLTA. As we said above, the lack of such a tort-based duty precludes a cause of action based on a violation of the VRLTA or on negligence per se. To conclude otherwise, as Steward suggests, requires reversal of Isbell, and we decline that invitation. For these reasons we conclude that the trial court did not err in holding that Count I of the amended complaint did not state a cause of action upon which recovery could be based.