THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, November 4, 1995 TAG: 9511020294
SECTION: REAL ESTATE WEEKLY PAGE: 04 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: LANDLORDS & TENANTS
SOURCE: BY WILLIAM MAZEL, SPECIAL TO REAL ESTATE WEEKLY
LENGTH: Medium: 71 lines
Several weeks ago, my wife's bridge club met at our home for its weekly bridge, lunch and conversation meeting.
After the events were over, one of the ladies, when leaving the house, stubbed her toe on a loose brick in the walk, fell and fractured her ankle.
We are tenants renting a single-family house and our question is, are we, or the landlord, liable for my wife's guest's medical expenses resulting from the fall?
There are several rules pertaining to the liability of occupants to tenants for injuries to persons rightfully on the premises caused by defects in the premises.
In this case, your wife's guest was a social visitor and the general rule is that the occupant of the premises is not liable for injuries to social visitors resulting from patent defects and would only be liable for injuries resulting from latent defects.
Latent defects are those defects that are not open and obvious and could not be readily seen by an ordinary person without close examination of the premises.
If the loose brick, in this case, fell within the category of a latent defect you would not be responsible for your guest's medical expenses. However, you would be liable if the loose brick, even though it constituted a latent defect, was known to you.
The occupant of the premises either has an obligation to repair the latent defect or to warn the social visitor of the defect when the defect is known to the occupant.
If the loose brick were considered a patent (known, open, obvious, easy to see) defect you would have no duty to warn your social visitors because they would be able to see the defect and they would assume the risk of coming upon the premises and avoiding the patent defect.
As far as your landlord's liability is concerned, without even having to consider whether the landlord would be liable, the rules above would probably apply to the landlord.
However since you are in possession of the premises and since it is a single-family residence, the landlord probably would not have any liability to your social visitor even though it might be a latent or patent defect. Who owns the garage?
My tenant built a small detached garage near the house which he is renting from me. There was no agreement between the two of us concerning this garage or what would happen to it when the lease ends.
I told the tenant that he cannot remove the garage when the lease ends because it belongs to me. The tenant says that he built it and has the right to either move it or tear it down before he leaves. Who is correct?
The law is, in this case, that the garage became part of the real estate when it was built and therefore it belongs to the owner of the land.
If tenants desire to add to the building they are renting or construct additional buildings to the property being leased and desire the right to remove the additions at the end of the lease, they should reach an agreement with the landlord before the additions are made.
Your tenant is wrong. You are right and if the tenant removes the garage without your approval you may sue for damages. If you know ahead of time that the tenant is getting ready to remove the garage you may quickly get your local friendly attorney to obtain an injunction enjoining the tenant from removing the building. MEMO: William Mazel is a retired lawyer. Send comments and questions to him at
Real Estate Weekly, 150 W. Brambleton Ave., Norfolk, Va. 23510.
by CNB