Hurd v. Hurt
2017 Ark. App. 228
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2010, Hurd leased a mobile home at Broadway Trailer Park from Bob Hurt (oral agreement; $475/month); no written lease.
- Hurd repeatedly asked Hurt to make repairs (toilet, stove, air conditioner, shower); Hurt or his agents sometimes performed repairs.
- Refrigerator had chronic cooling problems; Hurt previously added Freon. On Aug. 27, 2010, Hurd reported a loud hissing; Hurt said he had added Freon and that the noise should stop.
- After Hurd returned and lit a cigarette on the stove, the mobile home exploded; Hurd suffered severe burns. The fire marshal found the furnace flex gas line disconnected near the refrigerator, allowing gas to accumulate and ignite.
- Hurd sued the Hurts for negligence (failure to warn, negligent repair/maintenance, violation of Arkansas Fire Code); the circuit court granted summary judgment for the Hurts, holding they owed no duty.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding a genuine issue of material fact whether the Hurts assumed, by conduct, a duty to repair the refrigerator and whether the repairs were negligently performed. Other issues were not reached because they were not ruled on below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hurts owed a duty to Hurd via assumption by conduct | Hurd: Hurts repeatedly made repairs and personally repaired the refrigerator, so they assumed a duty to maintain/repair the premises | Hurts: No written lease or agreement; any repair to refrigerator did not create a duty to repair furnace gas line | Reversed: jury question exists whether Hurts assumed duty by conduct to repair refrigerator and whether repair was done negligently |
| Scope of assumed duty (refrigerator repair → liability for gas line) | Hurd: The Freon/repair work could have dislodged the furnace flex line; negligent repair caused gas leak and explosion | Hurts: No evidence they repaired or agreed to repair furnace or gas line; refrigerator work unrelated | Issue for jury: whether repair was performed reasonably and caused the hazard; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Applicability of caveat-lessee statute (Ark. Code Ann. § 18-16-110) | Hurd: Statutory landlord protection covers only premises; disconnected gas line not protected | Hurts: Statute bars landlord liability absent agreement or assumption of duty | Not reached on appeal (court resolved dispositive duty issue first) |
| Other claims (failure to warn; Fire Code violation) | Hurd: Hurts failed to warn about gas risk and violated Fire Code | Hurts: Dispute over duty negates liability; no additional ruling below | Not preserved for appeal—court declined to address because circuit court did not rule below |
Key Cases Cited
- Propst v. McNeill, 326 Ark. 623, 932 S.W.2d 766 (Ark. 1996) (common-law rule that a landlord owes no duty to repair absent agreement).
- Majewski v. Cantrell, 293 Ark. 360, 737 S.W.2d 649 (Ark. 1987) (landlord who agrees to make repairs can be held liable).
- Hurst v. Feild, 281 Ark. 106, 661 S.W.2d 393 (Ark. 1983) (evidence of landlord's repair activity can create jury question on assumed duty).
- Thomas v. Stewart, 347 Ark. 33, 60 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. 2001) (assumption-by-conduct doctrine can defeat summary judgment when landlord undertook repairs).
- Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc. v. Rankins, 312 Ark. 240, 848 S.W.2d 924 (Ark. 1993) (landlord liable for negligence in performing undertaken repairs).
- Hadder v. Heritage Hill Manor, Inc., 495 S.W.3d 628 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (statutory codification and discussion of caveat-lessee doctrine).