Lewis Operating Corp. v. Superior Court
200 Cal. App. 4th 940
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Tenant Costahaude was injured using a treadmill at a tenant-offered health club amenity in his residential rental.
- Lease section 29 purported to waive landlord liability for injuries arising from use of health and recreation facilities, even if caused by landlord negligence.
- Trial court denied summary judgment on public policy grounds; petitioners sought mandamus review.
- Civil Code §1953(a)(5) voids waivers of landlord duty to prevent personal injury where such duty is imposed by law; question is whether it applies to noncore amenity functions.
- Court held that the health club amenity is beyond bare habitability and that waivers for such amenities may be enforced against the tenant.
- Dissent argued §1953(a)(5) voids the waiver as contrary to public policy and that the statute should be read plainly to cover noncore amenities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1953(a)(5) voids the waiver for an on-site health club | Costahaude argues waiver is void under §1953(a)(5). | Landlords contend waiver valid for noncore amenities. | Waiver enforceable; §1953(a)(5) does not void for amenities. |
| Does landlord duty to maintain amenities trigger §1953 or Henrioulle/Tunkl | Maintenance duties imply public policy against waivers. | Public policy limited to core housing, not amenities. | Public policy not triggered by on-site health club in this case. |
| Is the health club an essential service affecting public interest under Tunkl | Health club is an essential service affecting public interest. | Recreational activity is nonessential and not covered by public policy limits. | Health club is nonessential; exculpation permitted. |
| Should public policy override clear statutory text in §1953 | legislature intended broad protection against waivers in leases. | Statute plainly voids waivers that excuse landlord duty under law. | Statute controls; waiver upheld as consistent with statutory text. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henrioulle v. Marin Ventures, Inc., 20 Cal.3d 512 (Cal. 1978) (public policy limits exculpatory clauses in residential leases)
- Tunkl v. Regents of University of California, 60 Cal.2d 92 (Cal. 1963) (public interest and adhesion contracts limit exculpation)
- Moss v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 1998) (duty arising from common law as well as statute)
- Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1993) (landlords owe reasonable care in areas under control)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (landlord duty of reasonable care for tenant safety)
- Booth v. Santa Barbara Biplane Tours, LLC, 158 Cal.App.4th 1173 (Cal. App. 2008) (recreational activities not essential services under public policy)
- Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica, 104 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. App. 2002) (applies public policy to health club context)