“Cases You Missed” is a Yellow Hammer News column by attorneys at Balch & Bingham. Trip Demos It provides concise summaries of recent decisions from higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Alabama Supreme Court, on cases that are of interest to Alabamians and may not otherwise have been known.

The Alabama Supreme Court set a date for its decision on May 24, 2024. Talladega City's Unilateral House of Representatives Powers The court clarified the obligations that landlords owe to tenants regarding the maintenance of rental properties. In a 5-2-2 decision, the court held that a landlord has a duty to address potentially dangerous conditions in common areas of a rental property even when the conditions are “clear and obvious.”

“Clear and obvious” is a legal term that essentially means exactly what it sounds like: obvious to a reasonable observer.

The plaintiff was an apartment resident in Talladega, Alabama, who suffered from mobility issues due to a previous stroke. The building in which the plaintiff lived was in disrepair, but according to the plaintiff, Housing Authority officials who managed the apartments told the plaintiff that some conditions would be met, including the installation of handrails on the stairs near the plaintiff's apartment. Unfortunately, the handrails were not installed, and the plaintiff fell, breaking his shoulder, knee, and possibly his neck. The plaintiff alleged that the absence of a handrail caused his injuries.

The defendants argued that the lack of handrails was a “clear and obvious” circumstance, and that the Housing Authority did not have a legal duty to maintain handrails in its apartments for its tenants. In an opinion written by Judge Greg Cook and joined by four other judges (Chief Judge Tom Parker, Judge Greg Shaw, Judge Sarah Stewart, and Judge Jay Mitchell), the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Drawing on its own case law, the Court determined that in the particular circumstances of a landlord-tenant relationship, a landlord may have a duty to address certain dangerous conditions in common areas of a rental property, even if the condition is “clear and obvious,” if the landlord could have used reasonable care to repair the dangerous condition.

Justices Tommy Bryan and Brad Mendheim disagreed with the Court's reasoning but agreed with the majority's decision, while Justice Will Sellers, joined by Justice Kelly Wise, dissented. In their dissent, they said the Court's previous decisions Daniels v. Wiley314 So. 3d 1213 (Ala. 2020), already excluded landlord liability in cases of “clear and obvious” circumstances.

The court's decision indicates that Alabama landlords may want to take special note of conditions in the common areas of their buildings. If a landlord fails to address potentially dangerous conditions in the common areas of a building, even if they are obvious to a reasonable person, the landlord may be held liable if a tenant is injured as a result of the dangerous condition in the building. When in doubt, landlords should consult with an attorney to learn what to do.

You can read the court decision here.

Trip Demos David is an attorney with the law firm of Balch & Bingham in Montgomery, Alabama. He practices litigation, appellate law, labor and employment issues, and public policy. A graduate of the University of Alabama and Georgetown University Law Center, David previously served as a legislative aide and counsel in the U.S. House of Representatives and a political appointee at the U.S. Department of Labor. The views expressed here are his own and should not be taken as legal advice.