400 S.W.3d 755
Ky. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ows Warren sued the Winkles for injuries from a ceiling collapse in her apartment.
- The seven-unit complex shared a common roof; Warren’s unit had ceiling tiles and a non-usable area between roof and ceiling.
- Warren alleged the Winkles knew of a leaky roof and failed to maintain a safe condition, causing moisture and collapse.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment finding no duty by the Winkles to maintain the roof/area between roof and ceiling.
- On appeal, Warren contends the Winkles retained control over the roof area and that a common-area exception or Restatement theory creates liability; court reverses and remands.
- Evidence included Warren’s deposition, Karen and Joseph Winkles’ depositions, and a safety expert’s report attributing collapse to moisture due to lack of vapor barrier between roof and ceiling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment | Warren argues issues of material fact exist about Winkles’ control. | Winkles contend no duty since area was under Warren’s exclusive control. | No; genuine issues remain; summary judgment reversed. |
| Whether the Winkles could be liable for a dangerous condition between roof and ceiling | Warren claims condition existed in area under Winkles’ control. | Winkles argue no liability for area not demised to tenant. | Liability possible; material facts exist. |
| Whether Kentucky law allows tenant damages for landlord failure to repair under the circumstances | Recovery for personal injuries may be available despite exclusive control. | Cases limit liability to repair costs or exclude personal injuries. | Not limited to repair costs; liability may extend for dangerous conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallahan v. The Courier-Journal, 138 S.W.3d 699 (Ky.App.2004) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review for GDJ)
- Davis v. Coleman Management Co., 765 S.W.2d 37 (Ky.App.1989) (common-area liability; open/obvious doctrine not bar when common-area exception applies)
- Clary v. Hayes, 300 Ky.853 (1945) (landlord generally not liable absent contract; caveat emptor with exceptions)
- Miles v. Tracey, 89 S.W.2d 1128 (Ky.1906) (pleadings insufficient to show landlord control; limited persuasive value here)
- Pinkston v. Audubon Area Community Services, Inc., 210 S.W.3d 188 (Ky.App.2006) (breach of repair duty; liability not beyond contract damages)
- Miller v. Cundiff, 245 S.W.3d 786 (Ky.App.2007) (URLTA limits to contract-based repair duty; distinguish from landlord-tenant open area)
- Davis v. (additional reference), 765 S.W.2d 37 (Ky.App.1989) (see above)
- Home Realty Co. v. Carius, 224 S.W.2d 751 (Ky.1920) (common-area duty retained by landlord; control implies duty to safe condition)
- Nash v. Searcy, 75 S.W.2d 1052 (Ky.1934) (disrepair vs. dangerous condition; reasonable safety standard)
- Leuch v. Dessert, 242 P. 14 (Wash.1926) (roof not leased to tenant remains landlord’s responsibility)
- Germansen v. Egan, 196 A. 881 (Pa.Super.1938) (landlord remains responsible for dangerous roof conditions)