Court Opinion

ID: 9584820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:53:00.918115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:21.274664
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the judgment affirming the direction of the verdict against plaintiffs in the case sub judice. There is evidence from which the trier of fact could determine that the owner acquiesced in the erection of this awning (by previous occupants) without insisting that the addition comply with the 1985 Standard Building Code in its attachment to the structure. This is some evidence of causation. Surely, the fact that it would have been difficult to determine this noncompliance with an after-the-fact visual inspection does not relieve the owner of the responsibility to have the improvement accomplished correctly in the first instance.
I agree that Bastien v. Metro. Park Lake Assoc., 209 Ga. App. 881 (434 SE2d 736), is not applicable because the structure here is a meeting hall and not a residence. While the tenant may not waive the rights and the landlord may not avoid any of the duties enumerated at OCGA § 44-7-2 (b) (1) through (b) (7) in “any contract... for the use or rental of real property as a dwelling place,” the converse proposition is that the parties may contractually alter these statutory rights and duties with respect to the rental of real property for purposes other than a (mundane) dwelling place. See OCGA § 44-7-2 (b). See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Chattahoochee Parks, 244 Ga. 472, 473 (3) (260 SE2d 867); Colonial Self Storage of the South East v. Concord Properties, 147 Ga. App. 493, 494 (1), 495 (249 SE2d 310). Accordingly, the landowner may validly insist that the occupier be responsible for repairs, shifting the statutory obligations of OCGA § 44-7-13. Assuming, without deciding, that the parties could agree to exculpate the owner from liability for injuries received because of negligent repairs, the evidence in the case sub judice does not address that point regarding the earlier church group and is not conclusive with respect to plaintiffs and their organization.