NCJ Number
74804
Journal
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume: 33 Issue: 6 Dated: (November 1980) Pages: 1493-1521
Date Published
1980
Length
29 pages
Annotation
The evolution of the implied warranty of habitability and the duty of the landlord to protect tenants from criminal activity on leased premises are discussed in light of a recent New Jersey court decision which broadens landlord responsibility.
Abstract
Profound changes have occurred in landlord-tenant law over the past 20 years. Courts have increasingly imposed a duty on landlords to maintain leased premises in a habitable condition, making the landlord responsible for the repair of latent and even patent defects. In a parallel development, the increasing incidence of urban crime and the rapid proliferation of multifamily dwellings have prompted courts to abandon the general rule that landlords owe no duty to protect their tenants from criminal acts committed by third parties on leased premises. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in 'Trentacost v. Brussel' (1980), contains the first express holding that a landlord's implied warranty of habitability obliges the landlord to furnish safeguards to protect tenants from criminal activity. Until recently, courts have used the term 'habitability' almost exclusively to describe the physical qualities of the premises, such as adequacy of heating and hot water services. With increasing frequency, the term is now used in connection with tenant security. In the New Jersey decision, the court synthesized the two important developments in landlord-tenant law involving the implied warranty of habitability and the duty of protection from foreseeable criminal attack. It is suggested that this decision represents a revolutionary step toward placing the landlord, 'periously close to the position of insurer of his tenants' safety.' The scope of this new duty to protect should be more clearly defined in subsequent rulings. Article footnotes total 162.