Court Opinion

ID: 9754912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:18:11.546295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:00.690762
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting:
Once again, the majority has elected to make a significant change in landlord-tenant law in this Commonwealth in order, in its opinion, to remedy inadequacies in today’s residential housing. I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Pugh v. Holmes, 253 Pa.Super. 76, 384 A.2d 1234 (1978).
The law in Pennsylvania has always been that while a landlord may expressly covenant premises as tenantable, there is no implied warranty to that effect, and the landlord has no ongoing duty of repair. Lopez v. Gukenback, 391 Pa. 359, 137 A.2d 771 (1958). The majority, however, has deemed it appropriate to adopt an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases. I adhere to my conviction that responsibility for such a change, if it is to be made, rests with the legislature, so that exact standards may be formulated and a rent-withholding mechanism may be established. I can foresee several problems which the Pugh majority did not intend, but which will inevitably flow from this court’s adoption of an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases. The purpose of that decision was to reduce the shortage of decent dwellings available, particularly to low income tenants. Most assuredly, the cost of repairs will be passed on to the tenant through increased rent. But a more detrimental result of Pugh is that many owners of marginal housing may deem the cost of repairs too substantial and the return on investment too questionable, and they will opt to close dwellings, thereby compounding the housing problem.
Beyond that, I find the further extension of the Pugh case by the majority absolutely offensive to contract principles. Pugh maintained that a lease should be viewed as a contract, and that the covenants of the two parties thereto must be *63read as dependent. Yet in this case, the court ignores the contractual provisions of the agreement into which the two parties entered. One clause of the lease provides: “Premises taken in as is condition, tenants know the roof has a leak in the same.”
The Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-316(3)(a) provides:
“[U]nless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like ‘as is,’ ‘with all faults’ or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty . . . .” 1
The majority declares that “an attempted waiver of the implied warranty of habitability in residential leases is unconscionable and must be held to be ineffective.” (Majority opn. at 245). Although Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code covers only the sale of goods, the freedom of contract which it recognizes in such transactions should likewise be acknowledged in the landlord-tenant relationship, which the majority has dubbed a contractual one. One should be free to bargain for premises of lesser quality to secure housing at a cheaper cost, if that is desired. At the very least, appellants in this case should not be entitled to any relief for alleged damages attributable to the leaking roof, a defect specified in the contract and accepted by appellants from the start of their tenancy. Instead, the majority is holding that as a matter of law, no waiver of the implied warranty of habitability will be upheld by our courts.
An additional problem which I have with the majority’s decision in the instant case is that the complaint fails to allege notice to the landlord of the defects or the passage of a reasonable time after notice to permit repairs. Appellants’ complaint states:
“7. The majority of the above defects were reported to the Defendant, Alexander Negley, as violations of the *64City Ordinances. (A copy of the notice is attached hereto and made a part hereof as ‘Exhibit B’).”
The attached exhibit is a memorandum from the Housing Code Enforcement Office of Butler, Pennsylvania, enumerating several violations of city ordinances. This notice is dated September 5, 1975. Appellant’s complaint alleged that conditions rendering the leased premises uninhabitable entitled them to recovery of all rent which they paid from the inception of the lease, on March 12, 1974, through September, 1975, when they vacated the premises.2 Even if the implied warranty is applied in this case, the complaint indicates that appellee received no notice of the complained of conditions until September. Thus, he cannot reasonably be held liable for breaching a warranty which requires that the tenant give notice and allow a reasonable time for repairs. The complaint thus fails to allege a cause of action against the landlord, and a demurrer was properly sustained.
Appellants’ second contention is that the lower court erred in sustaining the landlord’s demurrer to count two of their complaint which alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is on the basis of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 46, that the majority reverses the lower court’s ruling. That section provides:
“(1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress. .” (Emphasis added).
As recognized in the comments following Section 46, intentional infliction of mental distress is a tort that has not enjoyed very rapid acceptance or enlargement. It is very difficult to prove. Still, in cases in which conduct could be labeled extreme or outrageous, a cause of action has been recognized. In this regard, Comment (d) provides in part:
“It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has *65intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by ‘malice,’ or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”
Comment (d) further recognizes that:
“The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.”
Regarding the degree of emotional harm necessary to a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Comment (j) provides in part:
“Complete emotional tranquility is seldom attainable in this world, and some degree of transient and trivial emotional distress is a part of the price of living among people. The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it. The intensity and duration of the distress are factors to be considered in determining its severity.”
One of the chief difficulties in recovering under Section 46 is establishing that the alleged tortfeasor acted with specific intent to cause emotional distress. See Forster v. Manchester, 410 Pa. 192, 189 A.2d 147 (1963). The leasing of low income housing is generally necessitated by the need of indigents and is prompted by landlords’ economic interests; it is not motivated by the intent to cause tenants emotional distress. Further, I find the assertion that failure to repair in the landlord-tenant situation constitutes severe and outrageous conduct to be without merit. Such conduct does not rise to the level of other reprehensible actions for which a cause of action has been recognized. E. g., Papieves v. Kelly, 437 Pa. 373, 263 A.2d 118 (1970) (parents have cause of action for intentional mishandling of body of deceased son). Additionally, in the instant case, the implied warranty *66which the majority would read into every residential lease has been disclaimed. Therefore, the landlord had no duty to make the necessary repairs of which appellants complain. From the face of the complaint it is clear that the landlord did not even have notice of the desired repairs until September 5, 1975. It is therefore inconceivable that he was intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon appellants when he did not realize their alleged plight during the months for which appellants seek relief.
The majority cites Aweeka v. Bonds, 20 Cal.App.3d 278, 97 Cal.Rptr. 650 (1971), in which the court held that the plaintiff had stated a cause of action by claiming punitive damages for eviction and intentional infliction of emotional distress. I concur in the assessment of Justice Kane, who wrote in his dissent:
“At a time when the judicial system is laboring under a load which includes an inordinate quantity of needless, and often frivolous, vexatious litigation, the effect of the majority’s decision is to create yet another breeding ground.” Id. at 283, 97 Cal.Rptr. at 653.
I would affirm the ruling of the lower court.
VAN der VOORT, J., joins this opinion as to Count II.

. The Act of April 6, 1953, P.L. 3, § 2-316, as reenacted by the Act of October 2, 1959, P.L. 1023, § 2 [12A P.S. § 2-316],

. The complaint does not indicate the exact date on which appellants • moved from the premises, but it does state that it was during September.