Court Opinion

ID: 9533290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:30:14.273585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:00.098021
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur but would add a slight caveat as to Issue Two. None of the appellees were shown to have been the builder of the premises. Accordingly, under these circumstances, I would not impose strict liability or other liability by way of a breach of implied warranty of habitability. We venture no opinion today as to liability from a builder-lessor to a tenant who is not the first tenant to have leased the premises. It seems to me that if case law in Indiana holds a builder-vendor liable to a subsequent vendee, (Barnes v. MacBrown and Co., Inc. (1976) 264 Ind. 227, 342 N.E.2d 619) similar liability flows from a builder-landlord to a subsequent tenant.
I also venture no view with respect to possible liability from a lessor who is not the builder to a tenant for a defect which existed prior to his assumption of the landlord relationship if the landlord had knowledge of the defect or had the duty and opportunity to discover its existence. See Vetor v. Shockey (2nd Dist.1980) Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 575.
To the extent, therefore, that the builder of the premises may still be a party to this litigation, I do not join any implication that plaintiffs are precluded from asserting their claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability.