Landlord Liability in Arizona

Background

“The general rule [is] that a landlord is under a duty of ordinary care to inspect the premises when he has reason to suspect defects existing at the time of the taking of the tenancy and to either repair them or warn the tenant of their existence.” (See Lane v. Gavilan Peak Estates, LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0604, at *6 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2019).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“When land is leased to a tenant, the law of property regards the lease as equivalent to a sale of the land for the term of the lease. The lessee acquires an estate in the land, and becomes for the time being the owner and occupier, subject to all of the liabilities of one in possession, both to those who enter the land and to those outside of it.” (See Lane v. Gavilan Peak Estates, LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0604, at *6 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2019).)

“Therefore, it is the general rule that the lessor is not liable to the lessee, or to others on the land, for injuries occurring after the lessee has taken possession, even though such injuries result from a dangerous condition existing at the time of the transfer.” (See id.)

“However, a lessor of land who conceals or fails to disclose to his lessee any condition, whether natural or artificial, which involves unreasonable risk of physical harm to persons on the land, is subject to liability to the lessee and others upon the land with the consent of the lessee or his sublessee for physical harm caused by the condition after the lessee has taken possession, if:


1. the lessee does not know or have reason to know of the condition or the risk involved, and
2. the lessor knows or has reason to know of the condition, and realizes or should realize the risk involved, and has reason to expect that the lessee will not discover the condition or realize the risk.”

(See Lane v. Gavilan Peak Estates, LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0604, at *6-7 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2019).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review de novo dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” (See Coleman v. City of Mesa (2012) 230 Ariz. 352, 355, ¶ 7; Wasielewski v. the Kroger Co., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0697, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2017).)

“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if as a matter of law plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” (See id.)

“We assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but statements of legal conclusions without supporting factual allegations are insufficient to form a basis for relief.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “a landlord is not required to have actual knowledge of the dangerous condition existing on the premises. Information from which a reasonable person could infer that a dangerous condition exists is sufficient to impose liability, and a landlord's duty of care requires inspection of the property if there is reason to suspect defects existing at the time the tenant takes possession.” (See Lane v. Gavilan Peak Estates, LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0604, at *8 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2019).)

It is also well settled that a “landlord [is] not liable for tenants' guest's injuries because landlord's duty to warn of or remedy the [dangerous] . . . condition devolved upon the tenants once tenants knew of the dangerous condition [themselves].” (See id.)