 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sample v. Haga12/18/2001
by the tenant." Sweatt v. Murphy, 733 So. 2d 207, 210 ( ) (Miss. 1999). The allegations made by the descendants in paragraph seven of their complaint were sufficient to provide notice to the Hagas of a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. This issue was properly asserted.
. The descendants next contend that the implied warranty of habitability is applicable to their case. Invited guests of tenants have been extended the same protections given to the tenant under the implied warranty of habitability. Joiner v. Haley, 777 So. 2d 50, 52 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Additionally, the implied warranty allows recovery not only under contract law but also tort law. Id. at ( ). The implied warranty of habitability provides that the landlord has a duty to use reasonable care in providing safe premises. Id. Under these principles the implied warranty of habitability would apply in this case. Having the luxury of this cause of action is only the first obstacle the descendants must overcome in this case as they must show duty, breach, causation and damages. Sweatt, 733 So. 2d at 211 ( ). As this cause of action sounds in tort, the landlord has available all standard tort defenses including intervening cause and unforeseeability. Id.
. The descendants final contention in this issue is that the absence of smoke detectors in the rental property breached the implied warranty of habitability. There is no state or local ordinance which provides that rental houses must be equipped with smoke detectors. Safety requirements for rental property is a concern for the legislative bodies of the state and locality, not for the judiciary. While the implied warranty of habitability does apply in this case, it does so only to create a duty on the part of the landlord to provide reasonably safe premises. As stated above, the descendants must still prove breach, causation and damages. Sweatt, 733 So. 2d at 211 ( ). The breach of a duty must be the proximate cause of the injury suffered. Baggett v. Kornegay, 781 So. 2d 139, 140 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). The proximate cause is the "cause which in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred." Delahoussaye v. Mary Maloney's, Inc., 783 So. 2d 666, 671 ( )(Miss. 2001). Without passing on whether the absence of non-required smoke detectors breaches this duty, it is apparent that the cause of Sample's and Williams' deaths was not the lack of smoke detectors in the rent house as they each at one point exited the house to a place of safety. The cause-in-fact of the deaths of Sample and Williams was the voluntary act of each in re-entering the house in an attempt to find the other. Finding as such, this issue does not provide a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide. Summary judgment was proper on this issue.
CONCLUSION
. The granting of summary judgment by the trial court to the Hagas was proper. There are no genuine issues of material fact for a jury to determine on the issues of premises liability or the implied warranty of habitability. While the trial judge's rulings on the assertion and applicability of the implied warranty of habitability were erroneous, summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated above.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR. BRANTLEY, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|