In “Case” You Missed It is a Yellowhammer News column written by Balch & Bingham attorney Tripp DeMoss that briefly summarizes a decision recently issued by higher courts such as the United States Supreme Court and the Alabama Supreme Court in cases of interest to Alabamians that they otherwise would not have had. hear from.
The Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion on May 24, 2024 in Ex parte Hous. Authentication. of the City of Talladega that clarified the obligations that landlords owe tenants in maintaining leased premises. In a 5-2-2 decision, the court held that landlords may have a duty to address potentially dangerous conditions in the common areas of rented premises, even when those conditions may be “overt and obvious.”
“Open and obvious” is a legal term that essentially means what it appears, i.e., obvious to a reasonable observer.
The plaintiff, a tenant at an apartment complex in Talladega, AL, had mobility issues due to a previous stroke. The building he lived in was in disrepair, but according to the plaintiff, Housing Authority employees who oversaw the apartment complex told him that certain conditions would be fixed, including the installation of railings along the stairs near the plaintiff’s apartment. Unfortunately, the guardrails were not installed and the plaintiff fell, breaking his shoulder, knees and possibly his neck. The plaintiff attributed his injuries to the lack of a guardrail.
The defense argued that the lack of railings was a “clear and obvious” condition that exempted the Housing Authority from any legal obligation to the tenants to maintain railings in the apartment. In an opinion written by Justice Greg Cook and joined by four other justices (Chief Justice Tom Parker, Justice Greg Shaw, Justice Sarah Stewart and Justice Jay Mitchell), the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The court determined that, based on its own precedents, in the specific circumstances of landlord-tenant relationships, a landlord may have a duty to address certain dangerous conditions in the common areas of leased premises, even if the conditions are “open and obvious, ” where the owner could have taken reasonable care and corrected the dangerous condition.
While they did not join the court’s reasoning, Justices Tommy Bryan and Brad Mendheim agreed on the outcome of the majority’s decision. For his part, Judge Will Sellers, along with Judge Kelli Wise, dissented. In the dissenter’s opinion, the court’s previous decision in Daniels v. Wiley, 314 So. 3d 1213 (Ala. 2020) had already eliminated property owners’ liability in the case of “open and obvious” conditions.
The court’s decision shows that it might be a good idea for Alabama property owners to take a closer look at conditions in the common areas of buildings they own. A landlord’s failure to address potentially dangerous conditions in the common areas of a building, even those that are likely obvious to reasonable people, may result in liability for a tenant’s injuries as a result of those dangerous conditions on the premises. When in doubt, homeowners should consult their attorney about what to do.
You can read the court’s decision here.
Tripp DeMoss is an attorney with Balch & Bingham in Montgomery, AL. He specializes in litigation, appeals, labor issues, and public policy. A graduate of the University of Alabama and Georgetown University Law Center, he previously served as a legislative aide and aide in the U.S. House of Representatives and as a political appointee at the U.S. Department of Labor. The opinions expressed here are his own and should not be taken as legal advice.
Do not miss it! Subscribe today to get Alabama’s top headlines delivered to your inbox.
Keynote USA
For the Latest Local News, Follow Keynote USA Local on Twitter.