Wallace v. Golden Comb, Inc.
4 N.E.3d 445
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Landlord Grace Apicella (Golden Comb, Inc.) purchased and renovated a building into a salon and two apartments; the city inspected and issued an occupancy permit after renovation in 1998.
- The landlord contracted out construction work (architect and J&M Design Build); the landlord supervised the project and selected the contractor.
- In 2011 tenant Scott Wallace fell when a handrail pulled out of the wall; the handrail was attached only to drywall (no stud or blocking), violating building code.
- Wallace suffered serious injuries and incurred approximately $93,000 in medical bills; he sued the landlord and company for negligence under R.C. 5321.04.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlord; the court of appeals reversed, addressing whether a landlord can be liable for latent construction defects created by an independent contractor absent landlord notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a landlord can be liable for tenant injuries caused by a latent defective condition negligently created by an independent contractor when landlord lacked actual or constructive notice | Wallace: Landlord is liable because the contractor's negligence is imputable to landlord for duties under R.C. 5321.04; notice is not required for latent defects created during landlord-controlled construction | Landlord: Liability requires notice; where landlord lacked notice of a latent defect, the landlord should be excused (per Sikora and related authority) | Court: Reversed summary judgment — Strayer’s nondelegable-duty rule imputes contractor negligence to a landlord who controlled and selected the contractor; requiring tenant/landlord notice for latent defects in such circumstances would defeat Strayer |
| Whether violation of R.C. 5321.04 constitutes negligence per se and whether lack of notice can excuse liability | Wallace: Violation of code (improper handrail attachment) is negligence per se and not excused given landlord’s role in construction | Landlord: Statutory negligence may be excused if landlord neither knew nor should have known of the defect | Court: Violation is negligence per se, but prior cases (e.g., Sikora) allow an excuse for lack of notice only where landlord had no involvement in or ability to discover the defect; here landlord’s involvement prevents that excuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Strayer v. Lindeman, 68 Ohio St.2d 32 (1981) (landlord who employs independent contractor to perform statutory duties remains liable for contractor's negligent performance; duties under R.C. 5321.04 are nondelegable)
- Shroades v. Rental Homes, Inc., 68 Ohio St.2d 20 (1981) (violation of R.C. 5321.04 constitutes negligence per se, but proximate cause and notice can be required depending on facts)
- Sikora v. Wenzel, 88 Ohio St.3d 493 (2000) (negligence per se under R.C. 5321.04 does not create strict liability; a landlord may be excused from liability for lack of knowledge where landlord had no role in or reason to investigate prior construction)
- Hughes v. Railway Co., 39 Ohio St. 461 (1883) (early principle that owner cannot escape liability for dangerous work by contracting others when danger to third parties is likely)