JETX said:
Interesting question!!
Two sides:
1) You are responsible since the dishes were provided with the property and are a 'part' of the property.
2) The tenants are responsible since they contracted with the satellite service and without that, the dishes wouldn't have been connected to anything in the house.
Personally, I feel you have the responsibility for repairing any physical damage to the property itself (wiring, roof, power box, etc.) while the residents have responsibility for THEIR contents through their OPTION of renters insurance.
My response:
JetX, I agree only with your Number 1 statement. As for Number 2, contracting for satellite service doesn't mean that the renters are responsible for the wiring. It's "reasonable" for them to use the "dishes" and to use the service. Installation of the dishes is the responsibility of the homeowner since the "dishes" are connected to (bolted) the home. The whole system, the physical parts, belong to the homeowner and, as such, are his to keep and maintain if he allows their usage. If he allows usage, and in the absence of any contractual waivers due to their usage, then the homeowner is responsible for any damages to electronics otherwise properly connected to the homeowner's equipment.
Our writer, the homeowner, had a duty to inspect and repair his equipment if he was going to allow it to be used.
Here, our writer, the landlord, had a duty to use reasonable care to inspect and repair before transferring possession. [King v. New Masonic Temple Ass'n (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 512, 515, 125 P.2d 559, 560; Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp. (1952) 38 Cal.2d 375, 380, 240 P.2d 580, 583]
Duty to inspect:
It follows from the "should know in the exercise of reasonable care" part of the duty analysis (above) that landlords must conduct reasonable periodic inspections of the premises. Failure to do so "may warrant an inference that the defective condition existed long enough so that a person exercising reasonable care would have discovered it." [Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1210, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 478 - -plaintiff may prove dangerous condition existed for unreasonable time with circumstantial evidence; Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., supra, 53 Cal.2d at 447, 2 Cal.Rptr. at 148]
Broader duty upon lease renewal:
On the other hand, landlords have the same affirmative obligation to inspect for and repair dangerous conditions upon renewal of a tenancy as they do upon inception of a tenancy (prior to the transfer of possession). The law imposes on the landlord a duty to use ordinary care to eliminate those dangerous conditions that would have been revealed by a reasonable safety inspection at the time possession is transferred or the tenancy renewed, with resulting liability for injuries caused by a failure to do so. [Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1135-1136, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 755, 758-759
Negligence liability for a defective condition existing at the time the premises are leased does not turn on the landlord's actual knowledge of the condition; nor does it turn on a showing that the landlord had reason to anticipate the possibility of a particular defect. The general Ca Civil § 1714(a) duty of care requires landlords to conduct a reasonable safety inspection of the leased premises before transferring possession. [Becker v. IRM Corp. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 454, 468-469, 213 Cal.Rptr. 213, 222-223]
Likewise, since landlords have a right of entry and control upon execution or renewal of a lease, they have a duty to inspect upon renewal, assignment or sublease, and upon reletting the premises to a prior tenant. [Mora v. Baker Commodities, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 771, 781, 258 Cal.Rptr. 669, 675 (sublease); Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1134, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 755, 758 (lease renewal)--agreement to renew or relet cannot relieve landlord of duty to conduct reasonable safety inspection; Dennis v. City of Orange (1930) 110 Cal.App. 16, 22-23, 293 P 865, 867 (reletting to prior tenant)]
IAAL
