Court Opinion

ID: 9751364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:22:30.975981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:43.605361
License: Public Domain

Clifford and Schbeiber, JJ.
(concurring). We would decide this case on traditional and established negligence principles. There is no need to search for or rely upon any doctrine which expands the landlord’s duty with respect to tenant security.
*389The landlord, Overlook Terrace Corp., which is a corporation organized under the Limited Dividend Housing Corporation Law, N. J. S. A. 55 :61-1 et seq., and was financed as a qualified housing sponsor in accordance with the New Jersey Housing Finance Agency Law, N. J. S. A. 55:14J-1 et seq., had undertaken to furnish the plaintiffs’ apartment with a heavy duty lock set equipped with stopwork for control of the knob and an additional deadbolt to prevent manipulation of the lock by means other than a key. This undertaking was made in accordance with the regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs, N. J. A. G. 5:10 — 6.6 (d) (7), pursuant to the authority vested in him. N. J. S. A. 55 :13A-7.
The duty thus visited upon the, landlord is clear. The defendant’s attorney in his supplemental letter to the Court acknowledged that the regulation imposed such a duty on the landlord, and the majority recognizes the same obligation. Since the landlord did not furnish the working lock as required, the violation of that obligation is beyond peradventure, and under these circumstances conclusively established negligence. Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N. J. 2, 10 (1960); Michaels v. Brookchester, Inc., 26 N. J. 379, 387 (1958).
There is yet another basis for the landlord’s duty, still well within conventional negligence principles. Here, as the majority points out, plaintiff Nathan Braitman notified the defendant’s management office of the defect in the lock (which defendant had undertaken to furnish for security purposes) and was assured it would be “taken care of.” From this covenant implied in fact arose a duty on the part of the landlord to make the necessary repairs. Upon the non-performance thereof the landlord became liable to the tenants for consequential damages. Michaels v. Brookchester, Inc., supra, 26 N. J. at 285.
No matter, then, which of these well-established, traditionally-founded, long-recognized bases of the landlord’s duty is relied upon here, it is clear that there was a violation *390thereof, constituting negligence. From that negligence proximately flowed the consequential damages for which recovery was sought here, since the unreasonably enhanced hazard created by defendant’s conduct was reasonably foreseeable and, as found by the trial judge, came to pass.
We concur in the judgment of affirmance.
Clieeord and Schebiber, JJ., concurring in the result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Sullivan, P ashman, Clieeord and Sohreiber and Judge Coneoed — 7.
For reversal — None.