Court Opinion

ID: 9855468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:25:27.274723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:47.102887
License: Public Domain

*15GARFF, Judge
(dissenting):
I am compelled to dissent with the ultimate conclusion of the majority opinion, although the obvious ambivalence expressed in the rationale is not dissimilar to my own. However, when the legislature refuses or fails to address a social problem which injures so many so severely, the court should not hesitate to assert its rightful judicial authority to remedy an injustice affecting a large, yet relatively powerless, class of society — children and the underprivileged. The instant case presents a graphic illustration of the nature of the problem that mandates attention.
The appellant is a woman with few or no resources or income, who has seven children and was pregnant with an eighth at the time of this action.1 The “structure” she leased from respondent was determined by the Salt Lake City Department of Building and Housing Services to be “substandard and dangerous and declared to be a public nuisance which must be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal.” It had over forty housing code violations, including a dangerous, narrow, steep staircase; several shear cracks in the walls due to excessive settling; floors tilted because of inadequate foundations and supports; rotted floors around toilets plus holes in the floors elsewhere; collapsed ceilings in the bathroom and bedroom; uncovered electrical outlets and exposed wiring, some improperly spliced, creating multiple hazards; inoperative light fixtures; leaking toilets, faucets and a deteriorated shower stall; roof leaks; deteriorated and peeling plaster and paint, with holes in plaster in virtually every room; some window panes replaced by wood, with glazing cracked and broken, making it difficult and extremely expensive to heat the structure;2 missing exterior siding; and a collapsed shed. Although the record does not indicate the ages of the children, it can be assumed from the total circumstances that all are young, some are infants, and their health and safety is in serious jeopardy under such hazardous conditions.3
Through the application of the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability, there is a way to effectively address this problem. The majority opinion, by affirming the lower court and deferring to the legislature, is merely perpetuating the injustice. So long as we cling to the old common law theory of caveat emptor, this pressing problem will defy solution. Utah is one of the few remaining states still adhering to this doctrine, which holds that there is no warranty by the landlord that the condition of the leased property is suitable for the use contemplated by the parties, and that the residential tenant takes possession of the premises “as is.” See Restatement (Second) of Property § 5.1 comment b (1977). There is no need to repeat the discussion of these doctrines because the majority opinion has already addressed them and the need for change, and has concluded that “the law in this area badly needs reform.” I agree. However, I disagree that we should continue to defer to the legislature.4 *16As the majority pointed out m its footnote # 5, Utah courts have not hesitated to overturn outmoded doctrines. Because the legislature has refused to act, the only other recourse Cathy Oliver and other similarly situated victims have is the justice system. To ask them to continue to be patient is completely unreasonable.
The adoption of the implied warranty of habitability doctrine is consistent with the intended direction of the Utah Supreme Court in Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848, 850 (Utah 1981), even though that was an action to recover for personal injuries. The court relied on Stephenson v. Warner, 581 P.2d 567 (Utah 1978), to point out that a landlord has a duty under the common law to exercise ordinary prudence and care in assuring that the leased premises are reasonably safe and suitable for their intended use. Hall, 632 P.2d at 850. The court then reasoned that the lease incorporated, by implication, the City of Vernal Uniform Building Code’s safety standards, thus imposing a statutory duty of care on the landlord. Id. It also went on to say that “[t]his obligation is in accord with the contemporary approach toward leased habitations which emphasizes the contractual nature of the relationship between landlord and tenant instead of viewing a lease simply as a demise of real estate.” Id. However, the court declined to rule on the issue of implied warranty of habitability, as urged by plaintiffs, because of the “abbreviated briefing” on the issue. Id. at 851.
I agree with the majority that the rules which presently represent the established law in this state on this issue are “exceptionally senseless and anachronistic.” I find that they- also violate fundamental fairness. Continuing to pay homag^ to a doctrine that has outlived its usefulness, at the expense of countless powerless, innocent victims, is simply wrong. My conviction is that adopting the doctrine of implied warranty of habitability, either judicially or legislatively, would not only be a giant step toward a “kinder, gentler” community, but would also be a significant preventive act to avert future human suffering and tragedy.

. Appellant was ordered to pay $80.36 for rent from February 1, 1987 through February 9, 1987, plus $630.00 treble damages and court costs of $19.35.

. Monthly heating bills in the winter sometimes ran as high as $235.

. As a juvenile court judge for twenty-seven years, I heard thousands of neglect cases and hundreds involving similar deplorable conditions. This is not an isolated circumstance. It is a social problem of great magnitude and must be addressed. Further delay can only be measured in terms of greater human suffering and more neglected children.

.The Apartment Association of Utah, at this court’s invitation, submitted an amicus brief which stated:
The Utah legislature has had several bills before it in the 1980’s dealing with warranty of habitability. A 1984 bill co-drafted by the undersigned and modeled after the Texas law passed the Senate and failed by one vote in the House of Representatives. Other attempts have been less successful.