Understanding Landlord Obligations in Iowa

Landlord Duty of Reasonable Care

“Iowa precedents have required a landlord to exercise reasonable care to maintain those portions of the premises over which he retains control in reasonably safe condition.” (See Coleman v. Hall (1968) 161 N.W.2d 329, 332; Stupka v. Scheidel (1953) 244 Iowa, 442, 448, 56 N.W.2d 874, 877; Primus v. Bellevue Apartments (1950) 241 Iowa 1055, 1060, 44 N.W.2d 347, 350, 25 A.L.R. 2d 565.)

“[O]ur supreme court has recognized a landlord owes a duty of care to its tenants to protect them from reasonably foreseeable harm by third parties pursuant to section 314A.” (See Tenney v. Atlantic Assocs. (1999) 594 N.W.2d 11, 18; AMCO INS. v. JOHNSON (2007) 738 N.W.2d 662.)

“A landlord is not an insurer against every conceivable act by a third party but is required to provide reasonable security against the injury under the circumstances shown by the record.” (See Tenney v. Atlantic Associates (1999) 594 N.W.2d 11, 15; Brichachek v. Hiskey (1987) 401 N.W.2d 44, 47; Kline v. 1500 Mass. Ave. Apartment Co. (1970) 439 F.2d 477, 481; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314, at 116.)

Maintenance and Repairs of Latent Defects

“The implied warranty of habitability was established in Mease v. Fox, 200 N.W.2d 791, 796 (Iowa 1972), when the Iowa Supreme Court recognized the obligation of a landlord to provide his tenant with premises suitable for habitation. Under this doctrine, the landlord impliedly warrants at the outset of the lease that there are no latent defects in facilities and utilities vital to the use of the premises for residential purposes.” (See Struve v. Payvandi (2007) 740 N.W.2d 436, 439-40.)

“However, the presence of a defect and a resulting injury does not automatically lead to liability for the landlord. Instead, a landlord is only liable for injuries resulting from a hidden or latent defect if the landlord knew or should have known of the defect. Implicit in this standard is the rule that a landlord must, on some occasions, make reasonable inspections to search for latent defects.” (See id; Vazquez v. Hepner (1997) 564 N.W.2d 426, 430.)

“The landlord's obligation is only to do what is reasonable under the circumstances. The landlord need not take extraordinary measures or make unreasonable expenditures of time and money in trying to discover hazards unless the circumstances so warrant. When there is a potential serious danger, which is foreseeable, a landlord should anticipate the danger and conduct a reasonable inspection before passing possession to the tenant. However, if no such inspection is warranted, the landlord has no such obligation.” (See id. quoting Resolution Trust Corp. v. Rossmoor Corp. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 93, 103, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 328.)

“Under this standard, the landlord has a duty to conduct a reasonable inspection before passing possession to a tenant when there is a potential serious danger, which is foreseeable. The question of whether the potential serious danger was foreseeable necessarily depends on the circumstances of the case and rests in the hands of the fact finder.” (See Struve v. Payvandi (2007) 740 N.W.2d 436, 439-40; see, e.g., Benham v. King (2005) 700 N.W.2d 314, 319 [The conduct necessary to satisfy the duty of reasonable care to inspect depends on the circumstances. Normally, it is a fact question to be decided by the jury].)

Duty to Invitees

“The basic rule of law is that the possessor of real estate is under a duty to use reasonable care to keep its premises safe for use by invitees. This standard of care does not require the premises to be free from all conditions that could possibly cause harm so as to guarantee or insure the safety of all invitees, but a possessor of real estate is liable for physical harm to invitees caused by certain conditions existing on the premises, if he fails to use reasonable care to protect the invitees from harm therefrom…” (See Mangold v. Riverside Chamber of Commerce (1984) 353 N.W.2d 880, 881.)

“Under Iowa premise liability law, a possessor of land has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition to protect invitees against foreseeable risks of harm.” (See Welch v. YWCA (2007) 743 N.W.2d 871; Frantz v. Knights of Columbus (1973) 205 N.W.2d 705, 708-09.)

“Our supreme court has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states the general rule of possessors of land's liability for injuries occurring to invitees:

A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he

1. knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
2. should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
3. fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.”

(See id; Benham v. King (2005) 700 N.W.2d 314, 318 quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965).)

“A possessor of land must have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition before liability will be imposed.” (See id; Hopping v. College Block Partners (1999) 599 N.W.2d 703, 705 [discussing that a possessor of land must have notice and an opportunity to remove natural accumulation of ice and snow].)