Art Kirсhner fell on ice outside his apartment and sued his landlord, Chattanooga *738 Choo Choo, for damagеs. At trial, the jury-decided against Mr. Kirchner on his common law claim but for him on his claim under the Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Okla.Stat. tit. 41, §§ 101-136 (1991) (the Act). The court subsequently granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the statutory claim. Mr. Kirchner appeals arguing the Oklahoma statute alters the common law by increasing the duty a landlord owes tenants and provides a tort remedy for personal injuries causеd by a landlord’s breach of that statutory duty. We disagree and affirm the district court’s decision.
In January 1991, Mr. Kirchner sliрped and fell on ice hidden beneath a puddle of water on the sidewalk in front of his apartment. Hе filed a personal injury suit against Chattanooga Choo Choo asserting violations of the common law and the Act. In his statutory claim, plaintiff contended the Act imposes on landlords a higher duty than the common law to keep common areas in a safe condition. Chattanooga Choo Choo breаched this duty, thus entitling Mr. Kirchner to damages for his personal injuries. After the jury found Chattanooga Choo Choo liable under the Act but not the common law, Chattanooga filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The motion alleged the Act does not provide a tort remedy for personal injuries. The district court grantеd the motion.
We review
de novo
a district court’s determination of state law.
Mountain Fuel Supply v. Reliance Ins. Co.,
The Oklahоma Supreme Court has never reached the issue of whether the Act provides a damage remedy for violations resulting in personal injury. However, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals recently answerеd this question in a case resembling Mr. Kirchner’s. In
Weatherall v. Yorktown Homeowners Ass’n,
We reach the same conclusion under the district court’s reasoning as well. The Oklahoma legislature promulgated the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to regulate the contractual rights of residential landlords and tenants. See Okla.Stat. tit. 41, § 103(A). It does not alter the common law regarding personal injury and, therefore, does not expand a landlord’s duties.
Also, the Act does not specifically create an aсtion for damages for personal injuries. The legislature modeled Oklahoma’s law on the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, §§ 1.101-6.104, 7B U.L.A. 432 (1974), but did not include a provision existing in the uniform act which explicitly provides for damаges. § 4.101(b) (amended 1974) (Supp.1993). Where a legislature models an act on another statute but does not include a specific provision in the original, a strong presumption exists that the legisla
*739
ture intended to omit that provision.
See, e.g., Bank of America v. Webster,
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has employed аnother rule of statutory construction which says the inclusion of one thing in a statute implies the exclusion оf another.
Holbert v. Echeverria,
From these rules, we conclude the Act does not provide damages for pеrsonal injuries caused by a breach of any duty a landlord might owe under the statute. We believe, therefore, the district court’s analysis is correct, 1 and it properly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Our conclusion conflicts with Bokis v. Champion Fin. Corp., 608 F.Supp. 585 (W.D.Okla.1985) (Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act imposes higher duty of care than common law), which we believe was incorrectly decided.