LANDLORD AND TENANT
The terms of the lease should address to what extent, if any, the landlord and the tenant have the right and/or
obligation to make alterations or improvements to the leased premises. A lease should also specify whether or
not the tenant has the right and/or the obligation to remove certain improvements upon the expiration or
termination of the lease. Upon installation of fixtures or improvements in the premises, the issue arises as to the
ownership thereof. Unless the landlord and tenant agree otherwise, many improvements and fixtures installed in
a leased premises will as a matter of law be deemed “permanent” and will become part of the premises (and thus
the landlord’s property) upon the expiration of the term. Thus, if a lease is not clear as to the nature of certain
improvements which a tenant desires to make to the premises, the tenant should first attempt to establish an
understanding with the landlord, perhaps entering into a separate agreement concerning such improvements.
Otherwise, the tenant may not have the right to remove its fixtures or improvements upon the expiration of the
lease term; or, the tenant may be obligated to remove certain fixtures or improvements which the tenant wanted
to leave in the premises. The general rule that improvements will become part of the premises has been modified
by statute in California in cases where a tenant has installed fixtures for the purposes of trade, manufacture,
ornamental or domestic use. Such fixtures may be removed by the tenant during or upon expiration of the term
of the lease unless they have become an integral part of the premises through the manner in which they are
affixed and if removal cannot be accomplished without injury to the leased property.
The law in its current state leaves much room for honest differences of opinion between the landlord and tenant
as to the characterization of fixtures and other improvements installed in the leased premises. It is therefore
preferable for the landlord and tenant to provide in advance by agreement for the disposition of fixtures.
Liability of parties for injuries resulting from condition of premises. Depending on the circumstances, both
residential and non-residential landlords may be held liable for injuries to tenants resulting from the condition of
the premises. A residential landlord can be held liable on simple negligence grounds for injuries resulting from
potentially hazardous conditions or defects in the premises existing at the time of renting the premises to the
tenant if such conditions or defects could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection of the premises.
Thus, if such an inspection would have revealed a potentially dangerous condition (e.g., a slippery bathtub or
staircase), the landlord may be held liable for failing to take corrective measures to mitigate the condition.
Merely warning a tenant will probably not be sufficient to protect the landlord from liability.
In addition, if a dangerous condition or defect does not exist at the commencement of the rental term but arises
later, a residential landlord has a duty to repair such condition or defect after receiving notice from the tenant
thereof. Failure to make such repair could subject the landlord to liability for injuries arising from such defect or
condition.
The law pertaining to a residential landlord’s liability for a “latent” defect in the premises (i.e., a defect which is
not discoverable by a reasonable, diligent inspection of the premises) existing at commencement of the rental
term, has changed significantly. Previously, in the case of Becker v. IRM Corp. (38 Cal. 3d 454, 213 Cal. Rptr.
213 1985), the California Supreme Court held that a residential landlord was “strictly liable” for injuries to
tenant resulting from a “defective” shower door which shattered, in spite of the fact that the “latent defect” in the
premises (i.e., the fact that the shower door was made of regular glass, as opposed to tempered glass), would not
have been discoverable by a reasonable inspection of the premises. Under such a ruling, a thorough, diligent
inspection of the premises would not insulate a residential landlord from liability for injuries to a tenant resulting
from the defective condition. However, in Peterson v. Superior Court (10 Cal. 4th 1185, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836
1995), the California Supreme Court reversed its earlier holding in Becker and returned to the rule that a
landlord will only be liable for injuries resulting from defects in residential premises existing as of the
commencement of the rental term if the landlord is negligent in failing to discover and correct the defect in the
premises. Thus, while a landlord may still be liable if a court finds that a defect should have been discovered and
corrected by the landlord, the ruling in Peterson should provide residential landlords with some relief from
liability for defects which are not readily discoverable.
In leases of non-residential premises, a landlord generally will not be liable for injuries sustained by tenants
resulting from defects in the leased premises. However, the landlord will be liable for injuries resulting from the
landlord’s failure to correct such defects if the lease:
1. places the obligation on the landlord to maintain all or a portion of the premises (e.g., making the landlord
responsible for maintenance of the roof and structure);
2. contains an affirmative covenant requiring the landlord to correct or repair a defective item; or