Colquitt v. RowlandColquitt v. Rowland
Lewis Colquitt rented a house to Mark Rogers who placed an above-ground swimming pool on the premises. Although the pool was only four feet deep, Rogers attached a diving board to it. Colquitt was aware of the dimensions of, and attachments to, the pool.
Linda Rowland attended a house party given by Rogers. She dove off the diving board into the pool, sustained injuries to her neck, and sued Colquitt, Rogers and the manufacturer of the pool.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Colquitt and Rowland appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Colquitt could be liable for Rowland’s injuries because he knew of, but failed to cure, the dangerous condition posed by the shallow pool and diving board.
Rowland v. Colquitt,
1. A landlord’s liability to a third person who is injured on property which was relinquished by rental or under a lease is determined by
Having fully parted with possession and the right of possession, the landlord is not responsible to third persons for damages resulting from the negligence or illegal use of the premises by the tenant; provided, however, the landlord is responsible for damages arising from defective construction or for damages arising from the failure to keep the premises in repair.
The Code section makes it clear that a landlord who relinquishes possession of the premises cannot be liable to third parties for damages arising from the negligence of the tenant.
Edgar v. Walker,
The record demonstrates that Rogers erected the pool after Col-quitt relinquished possession and control over the property. Thus, Rowland cannot rely upon
2. Rowland argues that Colquitt can be held liable under
We recognize that our courts have often cited
Judgment reversed.
Notes
See, e.g.,
Elijah A. Brown Co. v. Wilson,