Court Opinion

ID: 9851270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:09:41.023307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:52.694422
License: Public Domain

Pope, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Even if a landlord has fully given up possession and control of the premises, he is responsible for damages arising from defective construction or failure to keep the premises in repair under OCGA § 44-7-14. Flagler Co. v. Savage, 258 Ga. 335, 337 (2) (368 SE2d 504) (1988). This responsibility can be modified by contract, but only with respect to the parties to the contract; a lease provision relieving a landlord of the obligation to keep the premises in repair is not effective against third persons lawfully on the premises. See id. And *255Flagler, like this case, involved a commercial rather than a residential lease.
Moreover, Gaffney v. EQK Realty Investors, 213 Ga. App. 653 (445 SE2d 771) (1994) does not support the proposition that a landlord may effectively delegate his duty where the violation of a specific ordinance or regulation (rather than just the generalized duty to repair under OCGA § 44-7-14) is involved. We did state in Gaffney that a landlord in a commercial context may delegate to an independent contractor his generalized duty to repair under OCGA § 44-7-14. Thus, the landlord would not be vicariously liable for the independent contractor’s negligence where the landlord inspected the property, discovered the dangerous condition, took precautionary measures, and hired an independent contractor to make the necessary repairs, but the independent contractor was negligent in making the repairs.1 Id. at 654-655. The holding of Gaffney, however, was that a landlord could not delegate his duty to repair elevators, which are specifically regulated due to their inherent potential for danger. See id. at 655. Like elevators, electrical wiring is specifically regulated due to its inherent potential for danger, and the duties imposed under those specific laws and regulations cannot be delegated. See also Fulton v. Anchor Savings Bank, 215 Ga. App. 456, 462 (2) (b) (452 SE2d 208) (1994).
Colquitt v. Rowland, 265 Ga. 905 (463 SE2d 491) (1995), the Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement in this area, is distinguishable in two important ways. First, unlike this case, it was undisputed in Colquitt that the tenant actually created the hazardous condition. And second, the alleged negligence in Colquitt did not involve the breach of a duty imposed by a specific statute, ordinance, or regulation.
For these reasons, the outcome of this appeal should not depend on the language of the lease agreement. The language relied upon by the majority may provide the basis for a landlord to file a cross-claim for full indemnification against the tenant, who is also a defendant in this case, but it does not preclude the landlord’s liability to plaintiffs. I would therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of landlord’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the negligence per se claims of both plaintiffs.
The issue of the appropriateness of punitive damages was not raised by defendant’s motion for summary judgment below, and is therefore not properly before us. In any case, evidence that a landlord failed to exercise any effort to comply with safety regulations may *256support an award of punitive damages. Windermere, Ltd. v. Bettes, 211 Ga. App. 177, 178-179 (1) (438 SE2d 406) (1993).
Decided December 1, 1995.
Carter & Ansley, Thomas E. Magill, Burke B. Johnson, for appellant.

Doffermyre, Shields, Canfield & Knowles, Ralph I. Knowles, Jr.,

R. Hutton Brown III, Crim & Bassler, Nikolai Makarenko, Jr., for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Blackburn join in this dissent.

 Gaffney is distinguishable from this case, of course, as the landlord here did none of these things.