Hunter v. Freeman

California Court of Appeal Jun 25, 1951 No. Civ. 18011Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a tenant's complaint sufficiently stated causes of action for breach of implied warranty and concealment of a known defect regarding a gas heater in a furnished apartment.

Issues

Whether a landlord is liable for injuries caused by a defective appliance in a furnished apartment under an implied warranty theory.
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged concealment of a known defect by the landlord.
Whether the pleading of special damages was sufficient to survive a demurrer.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the renting of a furnished apartment there is an implied warranty that the furniture is fit for use or occupation.”

“While it must be conceded that this is not a model pleading, the first and third causes of action sufficiently allege a breach of implied warranty.”

DRAPEAU, J.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for alleged injuries sustained by her when a gas heater exploded.

On March 15, 1949, she rented a furnished apartment from defendants, the owners and operators of an apartment building. The explosion occurred on March 28, 1949, as plaintiff was lighting the heater for .the first time during her occupancy of the premises. The flames which shot from the explosion severely burned her entire body.

General and special demurrers were sustained to the complaint and to the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff having failed to amend the latter complaint within the time allowed, the court dismissed the action upon motion therefor made by defendants. This appeal is from the judgment of dismissal.

The first amended complaint contains three causes of action:

The first of these is based upon the breach of an implied warranty. It alleges that on and prior to March 28, 1949, respondents were the owners, operators, and in possession and control of the demised premises together with the furnishings, including

“a

detachable gas heater.” That from March 15, 1949, appellant occupied the said furnished apartment as a tenant of respondents.

It is further alleged “That by reason of the foregoing . . . defendants and each of them, did impliedly warrant unto plaintiff that said furnishings, including said gas heater, were fit for use.

“That unknown to plaintiff, defendants did breach said warranty in that, at said time when plaintiff went into occupancy of said furnished apartment, and subsequent thereto, said gas heater was not fit for use by plaintiff but actually was in a defective, unsafe and dangerous condition.”

Further, that the first time appellant had occasion to use the heater, it exploded burning her severely. “That said accident and casualty and the resultant injuries to plaintiff were directly and proximately caused by said breaches on the part of defendants and each of them and said resultant defective and dangerous condition of said heater”; all to her damage.

[131]

Hunter v. Freeman

AI Brief

DRAPEAU, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief