Paradoxes, Parallels and Fictions: The Case for Landlord Tort Liability Under the Revised Uniform Residential Landlord-Tenant Act
In this article, I show how a coherent legal narrative must capture the revolution's radical policy by abandoning the no tort liability rule, which can be done in a number of ways: an open acknowledgement that the duty to repair creates a new property right that must be enforced by a property rule or more subtly through the use of both traditional and modern tools of jurisprudence, that is, legal fictions, equitable maxims and economic efficiency analysis. This article proceeds with a discussion of the common law landlord-tenant law, the adoption of the implied warranty of habitability, along with the persistence of the opposing rule of no tort liability of landlords in Part II. In Part III, I discuss the scope and coverage of the Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act. In Part IV, I discuss the creation of a new regime using both traditional and modern tools of judicial decision-making. In Part V, I discuss what the duty to repair, as a new property interest, requires for its fulfillment. Conclusions follow in Part VI.
Shelby D. Green, Paradoxes, Parallels and Fictions: The Case for Landlord Tort Liability Under the Revised Uniform Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, 38 Hamline L. Rev. 407 (2015), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/1005/.