Young v. Northington The Sewage Injury in the Laundry Room 2019 WL 5490986 (C.A. Kentucky 2019) Facts James Young was a tenant at a duplex property owned by Dwight Northington. In exchange for doing routine maintenance jobs at the duplex, Young received a reduction in this rent. Each side of the duplex had a basement with laundry facilities that shared sewer service. While doing his laundry, Young noted water on the basement floor that quickly turned into a gush of raw sewage. Young picked up his laundry basket in order to save his clothing. In doing so, he got raw sewage on the bottom of his orthopedic boot that he was wearing from an injury he received because of a home invasion at the duplex. While climbing the stairs to get out of the basement, Young slipped and received an abrasion on his injured leg from the stair carpeting. Young put antiseptic on his leg immediately, but over the next few days, his leg began to swell. He was treated for the swelling and pain at the hospital and then admitted due to an MSRA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusa bacterium that is difficult to treat because it is resistant to many antibiotics) infection and an abscess on his leg. Over a two-year period, Young had multiple surgeries, and his left leg is now shorter than his right leg. The possibility of amputation looms in his future. Young filed suit against Northington for his negligence in the maintenance and repair of the plumbing that then resulted in his injury. The trial court granted Northington's motion for summary judgment. Young appealed. Judicial Opinion Maze, Judge When a tenant maintains complete control and possession over the premises and the landlord has no contractual or statutory obligation to repair, the landlord is only liable for "the failure to disclose known latent defects at the time the tenant leases the premises." However, when a portion of the premises is retained by the landlord for the common use and benefit of numerous tenants, the landlord must exercise ordinary care to keep common areas in a reasonably safe condition. Thus, the pivotal inquiry in this appeal is whether, under the undisputed facts, the plumbing and sewage system in the duplex constitutes a "common area" sufficient to impose a duty of ordinary care on Northington. We are persuaded that a shared plumbing and sewage system falls squarely within the rationale set out in the Restatement. Like roofs, walls, and foundations, a shared plumbing system is "retained in the lessor's control" and maintenance of that shared system falls to the landlord who must exercise ordinary care to keep it in a reasonably safe condition. [t]he Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, provides in pertinent part that a landlord shall: (a) Comply with the requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety; (c) Keep all common areas of the premises in a clean and safe condition; [and] (d) Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, airconditioning, and other facilities and appliances, including elevators, supplied or required to be supplied by him[.] Northington admits he retained responsibility for maintenance of the shared plumbing and sewage system and performed necessary repairs but insists that there can be no breach of his duty absent actual or constructive notice of a problem. [T]he record disclosed an affidavit by Latosha Denise Wray (a tenant) in which she averred that she had spoken to Northington on several occasions regarding sewage issues with the residence and regarding excessive water bills which she attributed to plumbing problems. At the hearing on the summary judgment motion, the trial court ordered filed a copy of a January 6, 2015 email Ms. Wray sent to Northington's wife concerning problems in her unit. [T]he email states "leaks still in the basement." We are convinced that the question of whether Northington had actual or constructive notice of problems with the plumbing and sewage system creates a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Under the standard set out in Restatement (Second) of Torts 361, Northington owed Young the duty to exercise reasonable care to: (a) discover (i) the dangerous condition in the common area and (ii) the risk involved; and (b) make the condition safe. In our view, only a jury can decide whether he breached that duty. Reversed.

Young v. Northington, 2019 WL 5490986 (C.A. Kentucky 2019).

1. What duties would Young present as being breached by Northington?

1. Is there causation for Young's eventual medical condition? Explain why.

1. Why are the e-mail and testimony from another tenant so important in the case?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer Young would present the following duties as being breached by Northington 1 Duty to maintain ... View the full answer