Introduction
The case scenario includes Steve, who is renting a property from Billy and faces the issue with the non-compliant renting conditions and negligence of the house owner. As such, this situation resulted in a leg injury because of the unfixed stairs, as well as the broken heater, which was not fixed by the landlord for months. With this said, the case poses some critical issues in terms of the regulating laws concerning constructive eviction and the implied warranty of habitability.
What causes of action does Steve have?
Considering the functioning of the jurisdiction of the implied warranty of habitability, Steve has particular causes of action in this case. First, Steve has a right to file a civil lawsuit against the owner regarding the harm he received in Billy’s property. The implied warranty of habitability has a legal power to provide the individuals with better housing conditions and protect the tenants from the landlord’s disregard of their rental housing settings (Martinez, 2020). The existing legislative authority recognizes constructive eviction and pursues the majority rule when landlords are responsible for tenants’ injuries. Therefore, the main principle of the promise of the implied warranty of habitability implies that it empowers tenants to hold landlords liable for housing conditions in a strict legislative manner.
Steve can also sue Billy for the housing damages and file for the owner to force him to make the house repairs. More specifically, Steve’s causes of action indicate the rent escrow, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and possible retaliation. Such causes of action are feasible, given that the landlord must repair dangerous conditions on the property and solve the severe disruption on the household, which interferes with the tenant’s safety and enjoyment of the house. In addition, there might be a case for retaliation if Billy was threatened because of monthly complaints posed by Steve because of the inadequate housing space and safety measures. Therefore, this case demonstrated that the implied warranty of habitability is breached because of the hazardous violation of housing standards (Barros, Hemingway, and Cavalieri, 2020). As a rule, such a failure to make repairs by the landlord results in emotional suffering by a tenant, which serves as a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
What remedies does he have for the faulty heater?
According to the active local ordinance that requires landlords to repair heaters, Billy is accountable for the physical injuries that Steve received as a result of living in his property. His household is lacking crucial safety measures and provides inappropriate living standards. The law emphasizes that a landowner must maintain a good and safe working order and condition of all the “electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning,” and other house appliances (Martinez, 2020, p. 250). In terms of the faulty heater, Steve has a right to sue Billy for negligence in performing his landlord responsibilities within a regulating law system. Based on the juridical law, if the landowner violates a state or local statute and such breach causes the tenant’s injury, the landlord is presumed to be liable under the law (Barros, Hemingway, and Cavalieri, 2020). A landlord violated the implied warranty of habitability by failing to provide the proper access to heat during cold weather, thus, undermining the tenant’s health and safety.
Conclusion
The modern laws governing the implied warranty of habitability and constructive eviction are primarily responsible for the tenants’ health and safety. They require the landlords to be highly accountable for the living conditions they provide since it is strictly regulated by the juridical property order. A tenant Steve can affirmatively sue Billy, the landowner, for causing a breach of the obligation to maintain the appropriate premises if he gave notice to the landlord of the disturbing and risky living conditions.
References
Barros, D. B., Hemingway, A. P., & Cavalieri, S. (2020). Property law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Martinez, S. (2020). Revitalizing the implied warranty of habitability. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 34(1), 239–279.