Farber v. Greenberg

6 Citing cases

  1. Lake v. Emigh

    190 P.2d 550 (Mont. 1948)   Cited 15 times

    See Noe v. Cameron, supra. To like effect see: Nelson v. Meyers, supra; Colburn v. Shuravlev, supra; Farber v. Greenberg, 98 Cal.App. 675, 277 P. 534; Reams v. Taylor, 31 Utah 288, 87 P. 1089, 1091, 8 L.R.A., N.S., 436, 120 Am. St. Rep. 930, 11 Ann. Cas. 51; Hatzis v. United States Fuel Co., 82 Utah 38, 21 P.2d 862; Roberts v. Rogers, 129 Neb. 298, 261 N.W. 354, 356; Kitchen v. Landy, supra; Judge Hart's specially concurring opinion in Ripple v. Mahoning Nat'l Bank, 1944, 143 Ohio St. 614, 56 N.E.2d 289, at page 292; Lawler v. Capital City Life Ins. Co., supra; 32 Am. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, pp. 542, 543, sec. 672, pp. 526, 528, sec. 662; 52 C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, sec. 417, subdiv. (4). Compare Doran v. United States Bldg. Loan Ass'n, 94 Mont. 73, 20 P.2d 835.

  2. Morris v. Oney

    217 Cal.App.2d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 12 times
    In Morris v. Oney (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 864, at page 870 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 88], quoting from 45 California Jurisprudence 2d, section 116, page 625, the court stated: "`Statutes must be given a reasonable and common sense construction in accordance with the apparent purpose and intention of the lawmakers — one that is practical rather than technical, and that will lead to a wise policy rather than to mischief or absurdity.'"

    "Where a landlord is obligated to make repairs during the term, actual or constructive notice of the need for repair is necessary to put him in default on his obligation, unless he agreed to repair without notice, or has actual knowledge, or reasonable opportunity to acquire knowledge, of the defect." (See also McNally v. Ward, 192 Cal.App.2d 871, 884 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 260]; Yazzolino v. Jones, 153 Cal.App.2d 626, 637 [ 315 P.2d 107]; Farber v. Greenberg, 98 Cal.App. 675, 682 [ 277 P. 534]; Harris v. Joffe, 28 Cal.2d 418, 424 [ 170 P.2d 454].) Speaking of a landlord's covenant to repair, Professor Prosser says in his Law of Torts (2d ed.), page 475: "The jurisdictions which find a tort duty usually construe the lessor's covenant, in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, to mean merely that he must repair only within a reasonable time after he has been notified of the dangerous condition, or has otherwise discovered it."

  3. Coole v. Haskins

    57 Cal.App.2d 737 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)   Cited 5 times
    In Coole v. Haskins (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 737 (Coole), the court held "the assumption of risk by parents should not be held to preclude a recovery by a minor child on his own behalf."

    As we understand the argument of defendants with respect to the charge of negligence, it seems to rest upon the following claims: (1) that the relationship of lessors and lessees existed between defendants and the parents of plaintiffs; (2) that plaintiffs are in the some position with respect to defendants as their parents would have been if the parents had suffered the injuries; (3) that defendants were not liable to plaintiffs or their parents for injuries resulting from the defective condition of the rented premises in the absence of unusual circumstances not alleged in the complaint. ( Nelson v. Myers, 94 Cal.App. 66 [ 270 P. 719]; Priver v. Young, 62 Cal.App. 405 [ 216 P. 966]; Farber v. Greenberg, 98 Cal.App. 675 [ 277 P. 534]); and (4) that it appears from the allegations of the second amended complaint that "the injuries were sustained as a result of a defective condition existing in the premises which had been rented by defendants to the parents of plaintiffs." It is thus apparent that defendants contend that defendants' duties toward plaintiffs began and ended with defendants' duties as lessors of the portion of the premises in which plaintiffs resided and that the complaint failed to show a violation of defendants' duties as such lessors.

  4. Ellis v. McNeese

    109 Cal.App. 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)   Cited 17 times

    [1] "In the absence of fraud, concealment, or covenant in the lease, a landlord is not liable to a tenant for injuries due to the defective condition or faulty construction of the demised premises." (15 Cal. Jur. 704; Gately v. Campbell, 124 Cal. 520 [57 P. 567]; Toner v. Meussdorffer, 123 Cal. 462 [56 P. 39]; Daley v. Quick, 99 Cal. 179 [33 P. 859]; Farber v. Greenberg, 98 Cal.App. 675 [ 277 P. 534]; Nelson v. Myers, 94 Cal.App. 66 [ 270 P. 719]; Priver v. Young, 62 Cal.App. 405 [ 216 P. 966].) It is not sufficient to show that by the exercise of reasonable care the landlord could have discovered the defective condition, but in order to hold him liable it must appear that he knew of such defect.

  5. Denman v. City of Pasadena

    101 Cal.App. 769 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)   Cited 9 times

    But with no record to support the argument we cannot say that error was committed. ( Stewart v. Douglass, 148 Cal. 511, 512 [ 83 P. 699]; Philbrook v. Randall, 195 Cal. 95, 104 [ 231 P. 739]; Duvall v. White, 46 Cal.App. 305, 307 [ 189 P. 324]; Farber v. Greenberg, 98 Cal.App. 675 [ 277 P. 534, 538].) But aside from the absence of affirmative evidence of error in this respect we are unable to perceive how the appellant could amend his complaint to state a cause of action against any of these respondents if the facts alleged in his complaint be true.

  6. Columbia Laboratoreis, Inc. v. California Beauty Supply Co.

    140 P.2d 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)

    A landlord had no duty under the common law, in the absence of an express agreement, to make repairs to the demised premises. Farber v. Greenberg, 1929, 98 Cal.App. 675, 680, 277 P. 534; Wall Estate Co. v. Standard Box Co., 1912, 20 Cal.App. 311, 128 P. 1020; see cases collected in 15 Cal.Jur. p. 690; 36 C.J. 125; and 32 Am.Jur. § 657. Sections 1941 and 1942 of the Civil Code, under which a tenant may make use of the equivalent of a month’s rent after demand upon the landlord and his refusal to repair dilapidations rendering untenantable buildings intended for the occupation of human beings, have no application to the case, nor did plaintiff attempt to state a case under those sections. Wall Estate Co. v. Standard Box Co., supra; Callahan v. Loughran, 1894, 102 Cal. 476, 36 P. 835; Green v. Redding, 1891, 92 Cal. 548, 28 P. 599. Sections 1941 and 1942, being eliminated as inapplicable, there is no statutory law in this state imposing upon a landlord an obligation to his tenant to make repairs to the premises occupied by the tenant.