Opinion ID: 2286183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tort liability of Landlord

Text: Plaintiffs pursued three theories of tort liability: (i) ordinary or common law negligence based on Landlord's alleged failure to maintain safe and sanitary conditions in the apartments; (ii) negligence per se based on alleged violations of the New Castle County Code [3] ; and (iii) negligence per se based on alleged violations of the Landlord Tenant Code. The jury verdict form required a separate finding for each of the asserted forms of negligence, and the jury found for the plaintiffs on all three. Landlord argues that it has no duty that would support a claim for common law negligence and that the statutes at issue do not give rise to a claim of negligence per se. Landlord bases its common law negligence argument on the fact that, before the Landlord Tenant Code was enacted in 1972, landlords had no duty to maintain their buildings in a safe and sanitary condition. Although the Landlord Tenant Code imposes such a duty, [4] Landlord says that the statute cannot be used to support a claim of common law negligence. Plaintiffs' only recourse, according to Landlord, is the Landlord Tenant Code, which purportedly abolishes all tort liability unless a plaintiff can establish negligence per se. Landlord offers no authority for this position, which seems to be based on a misconception as to the meaning of the phrase common law negligence. To state a claim for negligence one must allege that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care; defendant breached that duty; and defendant's breach was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. [5] The duty owed may be one recognized at common law or one imposed by statute. In either case, the elements of the negligence claim are the same. The phrase common law negligence is sometimes used, as it was in this case, to differentiate between ordinary negligence and negligence per se. [6] It does not prevent a plaintiff from relying on a statute as the source of defendant's duty. Landlord also is mistaken in its argument that the Landlord Tenant Code precludes claims for ordinary negligence. The Code does provide that it shall regulate and determine all legal rights, remedies, and obligations of the parties and beneficiaries of any rental agreement.... [7] But there is nothing to suggest that, in undertaking to regulate landlord/tenant relations, the General Assembly also intended to eliminate a tenant's ability to bring tort claims against a landlord. Our courts have long recognized that such claims remain unaffected by the Landlord Tenant Code. [8] In sum, we find no error in the trial court's decision allowing plaintiffs to pursue an ordinary, or common law, negligence claim. Moreover, since the jury found in favor of plaintiffs on this claim, we need not address Landlord's arguments with respect to negligence per se. Assuming, without deciding, that it was error to allow the jury to consider the two negligence per se claims, they were duplicative of the ordinary negligence claim and the error, if any, was harmless.