Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Becker v. IRM Corp.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1985No. S.F. 24618Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LUCAS, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which holds that a landlord may be held liable for dangerous conditions of which he knew or should have known. However, I cannot join in imposing upon landlords strict liability for latent defects in any component of their property no matter who built or installed the defective item.

Taking an unprecedented leap, the majority imposes “an unusual and unjust burden on property owners . . . [T]he landlord [will] be faced with liability for every injury claim resulting from any untoward condition in every cranny…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Ray v. Alad Corp.California Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Price v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1970

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API