Court Opinion

ID: 9589236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:42:43.095964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:01.505688
License: Public Domain

Quillian, J.,
dissenting. There can be no question as to the soundness of the holding of the majority opinion that the landlord is not ordinarily required to inspect the premises the possession and control of which he has yielded to a tenant, and *771that in such circumstances, in the absence of proof that he was put on notice of such defect, he is not liable to an invitee of the tenant caused by the failure to repair. I also agree with my colleagues that, under authority of Dobbs v. Noble, 55 Ga. App. 201 (189 S. E. 694), the rule is applicable even to structural defects in a structure built by the landlord’s predecessor in title.
I do not agree that the general rule is necessarily applicable in this case, for the reason that there was evidence from which the jury could have legitimately concluded that the landlords had retained such qualified control over the rented premises that they were chargeable with the. duty to inspect the store room rented to the tenant Crossley and were responsible for injury to the plaintiff arising out of a failure on their part to perform that duty.
The Eulalia Building was originally owned by the landlords’ father, and was inherited by them. At the time Mr. Crossley was a tenant occupying the store room in the building. The evidence does not disclose what the rental contract between the father and the tenant Crossley provided as to inspection of the premises. Nor does it appear that, upon the building becoming their property, the landlords entered into any contract of rental with Mr. Crossley. The evidence shows that he remained a tenant and continued to occupy the store building. There was no evidence as to whether the rental contract originally entered into between the landlord’s father and the tenant Crossley reserved to the original landlord the right of inspection of the premises or what the agreement between Crossley and the defendant was in respect to that matter.
Authority for the proposition that, where a landlord retains qualified possession or control of premises in person or by agent, he is liable for defects that were discoverable by reasonable diligence are: Smith v. State Mutual Ins. Co., 40 Ga. App. 747, 750 (151 S. E. 554); Monahan v. National Realty Co., 4 Ga. App. 680 (62 S. E. 127); Marr v. Dieter, 27 Ga. App. 711 (2) (109 S. E. 532); Davis v. Hall, 21 Ga. App. 265, 268 (94 S. E. 274); Augusta-Aiken Ry. Co. v. Hafer, 21 Ga. App. 246 (94 S. E. 322).
One of the ways a landlord retains qualified control of the rental premises for the purpose of inspection is by appointing an *772agent and empowering him to perform that function. Smith v. Stovall, 84 Ga. App. 103 (3) (65 S. E. 2d 640).
The evidence does disclose that the landlords entered into an agreement with Trust Company of Georgia, by the terms of which they agreed for the trust company to take over the control of the entire building, to collect the rents from the same, and keep it in repair. The parts of the contract material to consideration of this case read: “Principals are the owners of a certain properties fully identified in “Exhibit A” hereto attached. Principals desire to place said properties in agent’s custody for management and servicing. Agent is willing to undertake said service and duties imposed hereby, upon the terms set forth herein.
“Now, therefore, it is mutually agreed by and between principals and agent as follows:
“1. Principals hereby employ agent, who accepts said employment, to render the following services in connection with said properties:
“(a) To hold said properties in its custody and control and others that may be added.
“(b) Generally to represent principals in the management thereof.
“(c) To determine the tenants and rates of rents they pay but agent shall make no rental or lease contract for longer than one (1) year without first obtaining written approval of principals.
“ (d) To collect the rents and other income, if any, from the properties placed in this agency and quarterly to distribute equally to the principals the net income, after reserving such amounts thereof as agent estimates to be proper for repairs, ad valorem taxes and other expenses.
“ (e) To employ Nunnally Lumber Company and other parties to make repairs to said properties but such repairs shall not exceed a total of $250.00 in any one month without written approval first being obtained from principals for any repairs in excess of the $250.00 per month. Agent shall hold said repairs to what agent considers to be a reasonable minimum in line with the present policy under which the properties are being operated unless agent is otherwise instructed by principals.
*773" (f) From funds in the agency account, the agent is authorized to pay the ad valorem taxes, insurance premiums and other similar fixed charges as they become due.
“(g) To keep accurate books of account on all transactions in respect to said properties and funds received and to render semi-annually detailed statements to principals.
“ (h) To supply from time to time such information as agent may possess for the purpose of having income and intangible tax returns prepared for principals.
“(i) To prepare ad valorem tax returns for the real estate managed hereunder by agent.”
The contract constituted an admission in writing that the defendants had the right to inspect the building, including the Crossley store, and the corresponding liability for failure to exercise ordinary care in discovering defects and making necessary repairs.
It is not necessary for the parties in the case to have been originally concerned in the transaction between the defendants and the Trust Company to avail themselves of the defendants’ written admission that they had retained the right incident to a qualified possession of the entire Eulalia Building. Nor was it essential that the contract state in express terms that the defendants retained such right. The language of the contract is a clear assertion on the part of the defendants both that they had and were exercising that right to inspect the store space occupied by Crossley.
In my opinion there was ample evidence for the jury to have predicated the verdict returned by them in the plaintiff’s favor.