Court Opinion

ID: 9531800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:14:38.108303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:35.282351
License: Public Domain

HUNTLEY, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part I of the plurality opinion wherein we reverse the trial court for error in directing a verdict for defendant on Count III of the complaint.
However, I must respectfully dissent from Part II of the opinion wherein the plurality refuses to acknowledge a common law implied warranty of habitability.
Mrs. Worden, on behalf of herself and her three children, paid Mr. Ordway a monthly rental for a suitable abode — he took her money and provided her with a kitchen sink which would not drain, failed bathroom plumbing which he would not fix, a toilet which backed up into the shower, four months of no hot water, and further provided her with rats, mice and roaches.
It is clear Mrs. Worden did not receive that which Mr. Ordway promised to provide her — habitable premises. Accordingly she has a cause of action aside from that provided by statute.
The reasoning of the majority is that the court will not recognize a common law right in an area of law where the legislature has acted to some extent. No authority is provided for the proposition that common law rights are repealed by inference or implication.
Suppose the next legislature, without statement of reason, repeals I.C. § 6-320. Would the plurality then recognize the common law right since there would be a void of legislation?
I would hold that where the legislature does not specifically repeal a common-law right, and where the right is not incompatible with the legislative enactment, that the common-law right continues to exist.
BISTLINE, J., concurs.