Becker v. IRM Corp.

698 P.2d 116, 38 Cal. 3d 454, 213 Cal. Rptr. 213, 48 A.L.R. 4th 601, 1985 Cal. LEXIS 270

• Court: California Supreme Court
• Decided: April 29, 1985
• Docket: S.F. 24618
• Status: Published

Opinions

Opinion

BROUSSARD, J.

In this personal injury action plaintiff’s complaint asserted causes of action of strict liability and negligence against defendant landlord. Defendant moved for summary judgment urging that a landlord is not liable to a tenant for a latent defect of the rented premises absent concealment of a known danger or an expressed contractual or statutory duty to repair. The trial court granted the motion and denied a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff appeals.¹

We have concluded that the trial court erred as to both causes of action.

The complaint alleged that plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell against the frosted glass shower door in the apartment he leased from defendant. The door was made of untempered glass. It broke and severely lacerated his arm. It is undisputed that the risk of serious injury would have been substantially reduced if the shower door had been made of tempered glass rather than untempered glass.

Defendant’s affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff’s apartment is part of a 36-unit apartment complex built in 1962 and 1963 and acquired by defendant in 1974. Prior to the acquisition, two officers of defendant walked through most of the apartments and observed that all of the shower doors were of frosted glass and appeared to be the same. The officials, one of whom managed the property from the time of its acquisition, stated that prior to plaintiff’s accident in 1978 there were no accidents involving the shower doors and that they were not advised that any of the shower doors were made of untempered glass. They first learned that some of the shower doors were of untempered glass after the accident. Their inspection of shower doors after the accident provided “no visible difference between the tempered and untempered glass in terms of visible appearance.”

Defendant’s maintenance man stated that after the accident he examined the glass doors, and that 31 of the doors with untempered glass were replaced by him. He also stated that in looking for the untempered glass shower doors “there was no way that a layperson could tell any difference by simply looking at the shower doors. The only way that I was able to differentiate . . . was by looking for a very small mark in the corner of each piece of glass.”

Plaintiff did not file affidavits in opposition to defendant’s.

The summary judgment procedure is drastic and should be used with caution so that it will not become a substitute for a full trial. A summary judgment is proper only if the affidavits of the moving party would be sufficient to support a judgment in his favor and doubts as to the merits of the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 111 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, 32 A.L.R.3d 496].)

Strict Liability

In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62 [27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897, 13 A.L.R.3d 1049], we established the rule: “A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. Recognized first in the case of unwholesome food products, such liability has now been extended to a variety of other products that create as great or greater hazards if defective. [Citations.]” The court recognized that the cases imposing strict liability had “usually been based on the theory of an express or implied warranty running from the manufacturer to the plaintiff.” (59 Cal.2d at p. 63.) The justification for departing from warranty theory and for establishing a doctrine of strict liability in tort was the recognition that the liability was imposed by law and the refusal to permit the manufacturer to define the scope of its own liability for defective products. (Ibid.)

Our concern was not that warranty law failed to adequately define the manufacturer’s duty but that the “ ‘intricacies of the law of sales’ ” applicable to commercial transactions might defeat the obvious representation of safety for intended use made by the manufacturer. (Id., at pp. 63-64.) In declining to discuss the basis of the strict liability, Greenman pointed out that the basis of it had been fully articulated, citing to the classical concurring opinion in Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 453, 461 [150 P.2d 436]. (Id., at p. 63.) In the concurring opinion in Escola, Justice Traynor pointed out: “The retailer, even though not equipped to test a product, is under an absolute liability to his customer, for the implied warranties of fitness for proposed use and merchantable quality include a warranty of safety of the product. [Citations.]” (24 Cal.2d at p. 464.) It was also pointed out that the retailer should not bear the burden of his warranty alone but that he could recoup any losses by means of the warranty of safety attending the wholesaler’s or manufacturer’s sale to him. (Ibid.)

Greenman also noted that the purpose of strict liability in tort is “to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. ” (59 Cal.2d at p. 63; see Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 732-733, 736 [144 Cal.Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162].)

We follow a stream of commerce approach to strict liability in tort and extend liability to all those who are part of the “overall producing and marketing enterprise that should bear the cost of injuries from defective products.” (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262 et seq. [37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168].) The doctrine of strict liability in tort has been applied not only to manufacturers but to the various links in the commercial marketing chain including a retailer (id.), a wholesale-retail distributor (Barth v. B.F. Goodrich Tire Co. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 228, 251 et seq. [71 Cal.Rptr. 306]), personal property lessors and bailors (Price v. Shell Oil Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 245, 251-253 [85 Cal.Rptr. 178, 466 P.2d 722]), and a licensor of personalty (Garcia v. Halsett (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 319, 324-326 [82 Cal.Rptr. 420]). In holding.that strict liability in tort was applicable to lessors and bailors in Price v. Shell Oil Co., supra, 2 Cal.3d at page 254, it was pointed out that strict liability does not apply to isolated transactions such as the sale of a single lot.

Application of warranty doctrine has not been limited to those engaged in commerce in personalty but has been applied where appropriate to those engaged in the real estate business. Traditionally, the courts applied the doctrine of caveat emptor with the buyer assuming the risk on quality unless there was express warranty, fraud or misrepresentation. (E.g., Gustafson v. Dunman, Inc. (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 10, 13 [22 Cal.Rptr. 161].)

However, the courts have recognized that a contract to build is in effect one of material and labor, that implied warranties are not limited to sales transactions, and that building contracts give rise to a warranty of merchantability and suitability for ordinary use. (Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 573, 580-583 [12 Cal.Rptr. 257, 360 P.2d 897]; Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 374, 378 [115 Cal.Rptr. 648, 525 P.2d 88]; Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 626 [111 Cal.Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168].) And in Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co., supra, 12 Cal.3d 374, 377-380, it was held that an implied warranty of quality attaches to the sale of new construction. The court pointed out that the doctrine of implied warranty in a sales contract is based on the actual and presumed knowledge of the seller, reliance on the seller’s skill and judgment, and the ordinary expectations of the parties. The court reasoned that “the builder or seller of new construction—not unlike the manufacturer or merchandiser of personalty—makes implied representations, ordinarily indispensable to the sale, that the builder has used reasonable skill and judgment in constructing the building. On the other hand, the purchaser does not usually possess the knowledge of the builder and is unable to fully examine a completed house and its components without disturbing the finished product.” (12 Cal.3d at p. 379.) The court concluded that “builders and sellers of new construction should be held to what is impliedly represented—that the completed structure was designed and constructed in a reasonably workmanlike manner.” (Id. at p. 380.)

Similarly, application of strict liability in tort has not been limited to those engaged in commerce in personalty but has been applied where appropriate to those engaged in real estate businesses who impliedly represent the quality of their product. In Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224 [74 Cal.Rptr. 749], a builder who mass-produced homes was held strictly liable when the heating system placed in a home failed. The court relied upon Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc. (1965) 44 N.J. 70 [207 A.2d 314, 325-326], where the court pointed out that when in our modern society a person purchases a tract house from an advertised model, he relies upon the skill of the developer and the implied representation that the house will be erected in a reasonably workmanlike manner and reasonably fit for habitation, that the purchaser ordinarily does not have the means to protect himself either by hiring experts to supervise and inspect or by provision in the deed, and that the public interest dictates that the cost of injury from defects should be borne by the developer who created the danger and who is in a better economic position to bear the loss rather than the injured party who relied on the developer’s skill and implied representation. In Avner v. Longridge Estates (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 607, 615 [77 Cal.Rptr. 633], it was held that a manufacturer of a residential lot may be held strictly liable in tort for damages suffered by the owner as the result of defect in the manufacturing process causing subsidence.

A similar development appears with respect to the landlord-tenant relationship. The earlier legal concepts regarded the lease as an equivalent to a sale of the premises for the term and under traditional common law rules the landlord owed no duty to place leased premises in a habitable condition and no obligation to repair absent an agreement. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 622 [111 Cal.Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168]; McNally v. Ward (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 871, 878 [14 Cal.Rptr. 260].) “The common law placed the risk on the tenant as to whether the condition of the leased property made it unsuitable for the use contemplated by the parties. In recent years, the definite judicial trend has been in the direction of increasing the responsibility of the landlord, in the absence of a valid contrary agreement, to provide the tenant with property in a condition suitable for the use contemplated by the parties. This judicial trend has been supported by the statutes that deal with this problem. This judicial and statutory trend reflects a view that no one should be allowed or forced to live in unsafe and unhealthy housing.” (Rest. 2d Property, Landlord and Tenant, ch. 5, introductory note, p. 150.)

The Restatement draws a distinction as to defective conditions in leased dwellings existing at the time of the lease and those arising thereafter. In the former situation the tenant may recover damages in the absence of lessor fault while in the latter damages are recoverable only if the landlord is at fault. (Compare id., § 5.1, subd. (2)(a), pp. 168-169 with §§ 5.2, subd. (2)(a), p. 184, and 5.4, subd. (2)(a), pp. 194-195.)

Departures from the traditional common law rule applicable to landlords evolved in California both by statute and judicial decision. Civil Code section 1941 requires that the lessor of a building intended for use as a dwelling put it in fit condition for such use and repair all subsequent dilapidations. However, the tenant’s remedies for violation of the statute are limited to the making of necessary repairs and deducting costs from one month’s rent, or to abandon the premises with discharge from rental obligations. (Civ. Code, § 1942, subd. (a).) And the landlord’s duty does not arise if the tenant has breached certain of his obligations relating to maintenance of the premises. (Id., § 1941.2.) An agreement by the lessee waiving his rights under section 1941 is void as contrary to public policy except that the lessee may agree as part of the rental to improve, repair, or maintain stipulated portions of the dwelling. (Id., see § 1942.1.)

Pointing out that the traditional common law rule that the landlord had no duty to make the dwelling habitable arose in the agrarianism of the Middle Ages and is incompatible with contemporary social conditions and modern legal values, California courts have recognized that a lease for a dwelling contains an implied warranty of habitability. (Hinson v. Delis (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 62, 68-71 [102 Cal.Rptr. 661]; Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 616, 622 et seq.; Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46, 51-53 [171 Cal.Rptr. 707, 623 P.2d 268].) In Green, the court reasoned that the typical city dweller leasing an apartment cannot realistically be viewed as merely acquiring an interest in land but rather contracts for a place to live, that modern apartment buildings are complex, difficult and expensive to repair and adequate inspection by tenants is a virtual impossibility, that repairs will often be outside the reach of abilities or finances of tenants, that the scarcity of adequate low-cost housing has left tenants with little bargaining power and rendered the common law remedies inadequate, and that the widespread enactment of comprehensive housing codes show that public policy compels landlords to bear “the primary responsibility for maintaining safe, clean and habitable housing in our state.” (10 Cal.3d at pp. 623-628.)

Green analogized to the parallel dramatic changes in the law of commercial transactions where modern decisions have recognized that the consumer in an industrial society should be entitled to rely on the skill of the supplier to assure that goods and services are of adequate quality and, discarding the caveat emptor approach, have implied a warranty of merchantability and fitness. Pointing out that the modern urban tenant is in the same position as. any normal consumer of goods, it was concluded that a tenant may reasonably expect that the product purchased is fit as a living unit and that since the lease specifies a term the tenant may reasonably expect that the premises will be fit for habitation for the term. (10 Cal.3d at p. 627.)

Green held that breach of the implied warranty of habitability may be urged as a defense in an unlawful detainer proceeding and that in such cases the court could determine that the breach warranted a partial or total reduction in rent. (10 Cal.3d at p. 631 et seq.) Neither Green nor our subsequent decision in Knight v. Hallsthammar, supra, 29 Cal.3d 46, discussed whether or to what extent breach of the implied warranty of habitability might provide a basis for recovery of tort damages for injuries caused by the breach.²

Developments in the law of landlord liability for injuries due to defective condition of the demised premises have not lagged far behind. The traditional common law rule was that a landlord is not liable to the tenant for injuries due to a defective condition or faulty construction of the demised premises in the absence of fraud, concealment or covenant in the lease. (E.g., Del Pino v. Gualtieri (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 912, 919-920 [71 Cal.Rptr. 716]; Forrester v. Hoover Hotel & Inv. Co. (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 226, 232 [196 P.2d 825].) The rule was not only based on traditional property concepts and caveat emptor but also on the landlord’s lack of possession and control. (E.g., Brennan v. Cockrell Investments, Inc. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 796, 799-801 [111 Cal.Rptr. 122].) A number of exceptions have developed to the rule of landlord nonliability—where the landlord voluntarily undertakes to repair, where the landlord had knowledge of defects, where a safety law was violated, where the landlord retained a part of the premises for common use, and where the lease was for a semipublic purpose. (3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) pp. 2135-2136.)

Strict liability for the conditions of the demised premises has been applied to landlords. Prior to Greenman, it was held that where a landlord represented that a wall-bed was safe, secure and in fit condition at the time of the letting, the plaintiff could maintain an action based on the express warranty. (Shattuck v. St. Francis Hotel & Apts. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 358, 360-361 [60 P.2d 855].) Also, prior to Greenman, it was held that a lessee could recover for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for use when a door to which a folding bed was attached fell and injured him. (Fisher v. Pennington (1931) 116 Cal.App. 248, 249-251 [2 P.2d 518].) Fisher was followed in Charleville v. Metropolitan Trust Co. (1934) 136 Cal.App. 349, 355 [29 P.2d 241] which also involved a folding bed and Hunter v. Freeman (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 129, 131 et seq. [233 P.2d 65], involving an explosion of a detachable heater. In all four cases, the accident occurred shortly after the tenant went into possession, and it was also held that the warranty liability was limited to “the condition of the premises at the beginning of the term and not to conditions which, unknown to the lessor, subsequently arise.” (Forrester v. Hoover Hotel & Inv. Co., supra, 87 Cal.App.2d 226, 232 [196 P.2d 825].)³ Each of the above cases involved a furnished apartment and the accident was arguably attributable to the furnishings as well as the condition of the demised premises.

Subsequent to Greenman, strict liability in tort was applied to landlords for injuries to tenants in Fakhoury v. Magner (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 58, 62-63 [101 Cal.Rptr. 473] and Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 960-963 [128 Cal.Rptr. 69]. In Fakhoury, a couch in a furnished apartment collapsed, and the court held that the landlord is strictly liable in tort for defective furniture, pointing out that the liability was not for defective premises. (25 Cal.App.3d at p. 63.) In Golden, the landlord employed a contractor to install a heater, and because of defective manufacture or installation there was a fire. Although acknowledging the distinction made in Fakhoury between defective fixtures and defective furniture, the court rejected it and held that the landlord engaged in the business of leasing property is strictly liable in tort when he equips the premises with an appliance which proves to have defects causing injury. (55 Cal.App.3d at pp. 960963.) Defendant points out that Fakhoury differs from the instant case because injury resulted from defective personalty rather than the condition of the premises and that Golden differs because the landlord installed the heater whereas the shower door was apparently installed by the builder.

We are satisfied that the rationale of the foregoing cases, establishing the duties of a landlord and the doctrine of strict liability in tort, requires us to conclude that a landlord engaged in the business of leasing dwellings is strictly liable in tort for injuries resulting from a latent defect in the premises when the defect existed at the time the premises were let to the tenant.⁴ It is clear that landlords are part of the “overall producing and marketing enterprise” that makes housing accommodations available to renters. (Cf. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 262; Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 623, 627.) A landlord, like defendant owning numerous units, is not engaged in isolated acts within the enterprise but plays a substantial role. The fact that the enterprise is one involving real estate may not immunize the landlord. Our courts have long recognized that contracts relating to realty may give rise to implied warranties. (Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co., supra, 55 Cal.2d 573, 580-583.)

Absent disclosure of defects, the landlord in renting the premises makes an implied representation that the premises are fit for use as a dwelling and the representation is ordinarily indispensable to the lease. (Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co., supra, 12 Cal.3d 374, 377-380.) The tenant purchasing housing for a limited period is in no position to inspect for latent defects in the increasingly complex modern apartment buildings or to bear the expense of repair whereas the landlord is in a much better position to inspect for and repair latent defects. (Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 .) The tenant’s ability to inspect is ordinarily substantially less than that of a purchaser of the property. (Cf. Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co., supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 379.)

The tenant renting the dwelling is compelled to rely upon the implied assurance of safety made by the landlord. It is also apparent that the landlord by adjustment of price at the time he acquires the property, by rentals or by insurance is in a better position to bear the costs of injuries due to defects in the premises than the tenants.

In these circumstances, strict liability in tort for latent defects existing at the time of renting must be applied to insure that the landlord who markets the product bears the costs of injuries resulting from the defects “rather than the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.” (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 63.)

Defendant argues that a landlord who purchases an existing building which is not new should be exempt from strict liability in tort for latent defects because, like dealers in used personalty, he assertedly is not part of the manufacturing and marketing enterprise. Defendant relies on a statement in Vandemark v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 61 Cal.2d 256, 262-263: “Strict liability on the manufacturer and retailer alike affords maximum protection to the injured plaintiff and works no injustice to defendants, for they can adjust the costs of such protection between them in the course of their continuing business relationship.” Defendant states that it has never been in a business relationship with the builder and that purchasers of used rental properties do not have a continuing business relationship with builders permitting adjustments of the costs of protecting tenants.

In several cases, it has been held that a seller of used machinery who does not rebuild or rehabilitate the machinery is not strictly liable in tort. (Wilkinson v. Hicks (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 515, 520 et seq. [179 Cal.Rptr. 5]; LaRosa v. Superior Court (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 741, 748 et seq. [176 Cal.Rptr. 224]; Tauber-Arons Auctioneers Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 268, 273 et seq. [161 Cal.Rptr. 789].) Each of these cases relied at least in part on the theory that the used machinery dealer simply by offering machinery for sale does not make any representation as to quality or durability and thus does not generate the expectation of safety involved in the sale of new goods. (Wilkinson, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at pp. 520-521; LaRosa, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at pp. 760-761; Tauber-Arons, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 278 et seq.) When the seller of the used goods makes extensive modifications or reconditions, he is treated as a manufacturer—there is an expectation that the safety of the product has been addressed. (Green v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 819, 838 [115 Cal.Rptr. 685].)

LaRosa v. Superior Court, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d 741, 756-757 and Tauber-Arons Auctioneers Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d 268, 282, also suggested that the used machinery dealer ordinarily is not part of the manufacturing and marketing enterprise.

However, a continuing business relationship is not essential to imposition of strict liability. The unavailability of the manufacturer is not a factor militating against liability of others engaged in the enterprise. The paramount policy of the strict products liability rule remains the spreading throughout society of the cost of compensating otherwise defenseless victims of manufacturing defects. (Ray v. Alad Corp. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 22, 33-34 [136 Cal.Rptr. 574, 560 P.2d 3]; Price v. Shell Oil Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 245, 251 [85 Cal.Rptr. 178, 466 P.2d 722]; Rawlings v. D.M. Oliver, Inc. (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 890, 899 et seq. [159 Cal.Rptr. 119].) If anything, the unavailability of the manufacturer is a factor militating in favor of liability of persons engaged in the enterprise who can spread the cost of compensation. (See Ray v. Alad Corp., supra, 19 Cal.3d 22, 33-34.) Just as the unavailability of the manufacturer does not militate against liability, the absence of a continuing business relationship between builder and landlord is not a factor warranting denial of strict liability of the landlord.

Landlords are an integral part of the enterprise of producing and marketing rental housing. While used machinery is often scrapped or discarded so that resale for use may be the exception rather than the rule, landlords are essential to the rental business. They have more than a random or accidental role in the marketing enterprise. In addition, landlords have a continuing relationship to the property following the renting in contrast to the used machinery dealer who sells. As we have seen, in renting property the landlord, unlike the used machinery dealer, makes representations of habitability and safety.

The cost of protecting tenants is an appropriate cost of the enterprise. Within our marketplace economy, the cost of purchasing rental housing is obviously based on the anticipated risks and rewards of the purchase, and thus it may be expected that along with numerous other factors the price of used rental housing will depend in part on the quality of the building and reflect the anticipated costs of protecting tenants, including repairs, replacement of defects and insurance. Further, the landlord after purchase may be able to adjust rents to reflect such costs. The landlord will also often be able to seek equitable indemnity for losses.

We conclude that the absence of a continuing business relationship between builder and landlord does not preclude application of strict liability in tort for latent defects existing at the time of the lease, because landlords are an integral part of the enterprise and they should bear the cost of injuries resulting from such defects rather than the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.2d 57, 63.)⁵

Negligence

Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (a) establishes the fundamental principle of negligence liability, providing: “Every one is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary skill in the management of his property or person, 99

Rejecting the prior distinctions made by the common law as to invitees, licensees, and trespassers, the landmark case of Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, 111 et seq. held that the fundamental rule was applicable to the liability of owners and occupiers of land. The fundamental principle is applicable to the landlord’s liability to the tenant, and the landlord owes a tenant a duty of reasonable care in providing and maintaining the rented premises in a safe condition. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 924 [162 Cal.Rptr. 194]; Evans v. Thomason (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 978, 985 [140 Cal.Rptr. 525]; Golden v. Conway, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 955; Brennan v. Cockrell Investments, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.App.3d 796, 800-801.)

Any departure from the fundamental principle involves the “balancing of a number of considerations; the major ones are the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. [Citations.]” (Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 112-113.)

“In the typical rental situation involving a dwelling house, the foreseeability of harm to a tenant from the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in a habitable condition is obvious; the degree of certainty that the tenant suffered injury and the closeness of the connection between the landlord’s conduct and the injury is readily ascertainable by proof in each case; the moral blame attached to the landlord’s conduct in not complying with the habitability requirements articulated in the Civil Code and the policy of preventing future harm are present. Nor can we say that the imposition of a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach would unduly extend a landlord’s burden insofar as the availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. In short, we believe that under the policy standards articulated in Rowland, a due regard for human safety and health compels the imposition on a landlord of a duty of due care in the maintenance of the premises.” (Stoiber v. Honeychuck, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 924.)

Accordingly, a landlord in caring for his property must act toward his tenant as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury, the probable seriousness of injury, the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk, and his degree of control over the risk-creating defect. (Golden v. Conway, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 955; Brennan v. Cockrell Investments, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.App.3d 796, 800-801.)

Defendant urges that in the absence of knowledge of the defective condition or of prior accidents it was not under a duty to inspect for defective shower doors and that imposition of a duty to inspect would conflict with Civil Code section 1954 limiting the landlord’s right to enter a rented dwelling unit. So far as appears in the instant case, the dangerous shower doors were installed by the builder at the time of the construction and were in position at the time defendant purchased the building.

A person contemplating purchase of rental property, in the exercise of due care, will examine its condition. Maintenance of rental property in a safe and habitable condition is the primary responsibility of the landlord. (Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 616, 627.) In the exercise of ordinary care, the purchaser of rental property may be expected to inspect the premises not only to determine whether they are aesthetically pleasing but also to determine whether they meet bare living standards, including whether they are safe. The prospective purchaser may be expected to make such inspection in the absence of knowledge of any existing defects or of any prior accidents. Similarly, a landlord at time of letting may be expected to inspect an apartment to determine whether it is safe.

The mere fact that a particular kind of an accident has not happened before does not show that such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated. (Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, [123 Cal.Rptr. 468, 539 P.2d 36].) Defective glass doors provide a substantial risk of injury which reasonably may be anticipated.

Civil Code section 1954 limiting the right of the landlord to enter the tenant’s premises provides that he may enter to exhibit the dwelling unit “to prospective or actual purchasers” and to make necessary repairs, and the section does not provide a bar to recognition of a duty to inspect in the instant case. Defendant’s officials inspected the apartments.

We conclude that a duty to inspect for dangerous conditions in the exercise of due care may properly be found in the instant case and that lack of awareness of the dangerous condition does not necessarily preclude liability.

In urging that there was no duty to inspect, defendant relies upon cases where the defect developed after purchase of the building by the defendant and while the apartment was in possession of the tenant. (E.g., Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 510 et seq. [118 Cal.Rptr. 741, 81 A.L.R.3d 628].) Those cases are distinguishable because, in the instant case, the dangerous condition existed at the time of purchase and at the time the property was leased.

The duty to inspect should charge the defendant only with those matters which would have been disclosed by a reasonable inspection. In the instant case, the undisputed affidavits are to the effect that there was “no visible difference between the tempered and untempered glass in terms of visible appearance,” but that there was a “very small mark” in the corner of each piece of glass which apparently showed that the glass was untempered. The glass was not before the trial court when it granted the motion for summary judgment, and the record does not disclose the nature of the “mark.” If the “mark” was “untempered” a trier of fact could properly conclude that a reasonable inspection would have, at least, included a visual inspection which disclosed the danger. In resolving doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment (Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, 111), defendant’s failure to fully identify the “mark” requires us to assume that it would have disclosed the danger to a reasonable inspection.

As to each cause of action the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant.

The judgment is reversed.

Kaus, J., Reynoso, J., and Grodin, J., concurred.

1 We have been advised that while the case was pending in this court plaintiff settled with the builder and a door assembler and installer for $150,000 plus $50,000 in the event plaintiff is unsuccessful against the remaining defendants. Apparently, the case remains pending in the trial court against a component part supplier. Defendant landlord will be referred to as defendant herein.

2 As will appear, subsequent Court of Appeal cases have considered this issue.

3 Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 416, 424 [282 P.2d 890], stated that Forrester and Hunter disapproved a statement in Fisher that the landlord of a furnished apartment warrants the safety of the premises and the furnishings to the same extent as an innkeeper. The citation to Forrester and Hunter reflects approval of the limited implied warranty recognized in the former case and applied in the latter of a warranty of the condition of the premises at the beginning of the term. Thus, Stowe should not be read as rejecting implied warranties by landlords generally but only the equation of such warranties to an innkeeper’s warranties.

4 We do not determine whether strict liability would apply to a disclosed defect. (See Luque v. McLean (1972) 8 Cal.3d 136, 141-146 [104 Cal.Rptr. 443, 501 P.2d 1163].)

5 In view of our conclusion it is unnecessary to determine whether the landlord is strictly liable for defects in the property which develop after the property is leased.