Tenant broke Sliding glass door who pays?

[justalayman]

dang guys, after reading the thread yet again and realizing OP is speaking about a sliding glass door;

I cannot think of a time in my life that tempered glass was not original in a sliding glass door.

 

[Cvillecpm]

Just like lead-based paint, they stopped selling the OLD GLASS when the code/law was changed...the old glass can't be replaced because the code changed and code enforcement is not going to care what glass was there when it was broken - they WILL care about what it is replaced with and the landlord doing it themselves to save the negligent tenant $$$ is not cost effective....had the tenant not broken the window, it could have lasted for years

 

[Zigner]

CV is used to being wrong. I think he does it on purpose.

 

[Cvillecpm]

Ziglet......CV is a FEMALE

 

[justalayman]

Just like lead-based paint, they stopped selling the OLD GLASS when the code/law was changed...the old glass can't be replaced because the code changed and code enforcement is not going to care what glass was there when it was broken - they WILL care about what it is replaced with and the landlord doing it themselves to save the negligent tenant $$$ is not cost effective....had the tenant not broken the window, it could have lasted for years

as I said, I do not ever remember a time where non-tempered glass was used in sliding glass doors.

but regardless, if there were grandfather laws that allowed the continued use of the non-tempered glass, the remaining panes would still not have to be replaced now due to the grandfathering.

so, if there was no grandfathering, LL was required to replace the glass years ago when you suggest the code changed away from non-tempered glass. As such, the glass should have all been tempered anyway and the tenant breaking the glass did not cause the LL any damages, especially with the undamaged panes, simple because he was already required to replace them whether the tenant broke one or not.

anyway you look at it, the tenant is not liable for anything beyond the one pane, at most. A grandfather clause would still cover the unbroken glass.



that in itself gives reason to believe that there never was a grandfathering clause.

as to your paint analogy; ok, fine. when lead based paint was outlawed and not allowed to be used in a residence, the paint had to be mitigated regardless of the condition of the paint. Simple put, the lead based paint had to be removed or covered. So, lets use that analogy: LL had to replace the glass years ago when the code changed. He simply didn't. Tenant is not liable for the replacement. LL is, by law.

 

[Cvillecpm]

Justa....I actually own a maintenance company in addition to a property management company. Non-tempered glass does not have to be replaced under national/uniform building code until/unless it is required to be replaced

When code changed, property owners/landlords were NOT required to replace all glass with tempered.

 

[Zigner]

Ziglet......CV is a FEMALE

Please see my newly modified signature


(my apologies)

 

[Zigner]

Justa....I actually own a maintenance company in addition to a property management company. Non-tempered glass does not have to be replaced under national/uniform building code until/unless it is required to be replaced

When code changed, property owners/landlords were NOT required to replace all glass with tempered.

EXACTLY - and that's why your lead-paint analogy fails.

 

[justalayman]

Justa....I actually own a maintenance company in addition to a property management company. Non-tempered glass does not have to be replaced under national/uniform building code until/unless it is required to be replaced

When code changed, property owners/landlords were NOT required to replace all glass with tempered.

well gee!! then the LL does not have to replace the glass now so LL cannot charge the tenant for the two non-damaged panes.

btw: I don't know where you are but the codes in my area may or may not be the same codes as any other area of the world. In other words, we do not abide by any national building codes. In Michigan, they tend to want to be different than anybody else on purpose as well, we have local ordinances to adhere to.

 

[TigerD]

that in itself gives reason to believe that there never was a grandfathering clause.

Or possibly the simplest answer - the glass company sees an opportunity to make an extra few bucks doing an unnecessary repair.

DC

 

[justalayman]

Or possibly the simplest answer - the glass company sees an opportunity to make an extra few bucks doing an unnecessary repair.

DC

that could actually be a real possibility. There are a fair share of unscrupulous repairman out there.

 

[Alaska landlord]

Sorry I missed this whole debate. My thoughts are that the glass repair company's claims should be verified by getting another bid.

Since the two unbroken pains met code when they were made, they don't need to be replaced. The broken window should be replaced with tempered glass because the code NOW requires it. Of course, the tenant should pay for all work done.

If it ain't broke, you don't fix it. (remaining two windows).

Another thing is you never listen to a contractor's claim about code when he stands to benefit from his advice. You verify with code compliance.

 

[tranquility]

While I don't have an opinion on if there is legal requirement to replace the glass with tempered or be in violation of the code, I say again, now that the landlord knows of the problem--he has a problem.

If someone is hurt or killed because of such glass below code, he will be STRICTLY LIABLE for his negligence. It will not matter if the tenant is playing an indoor football game on rollerskates and signs a paper saying he knew the glass was a hazard and he, when drunk and high on illegal drugs decided to skate right at the glass to see if he could stop in time. Strictly Liable.

There is a CA supreme court case precisely on point giving such liability in all instances of a LATENT defect regarding the turning over of the apartment to another. Even though the court said there was no way for the landlord to know a shower door was not tempered, they found him strictly liable for the damages to a tenant who slipped on a broken baby food jar into the shower door.

The case I posted overturned that decision on strict liability for the latent defect. HOWEVER, the defect is no longer latent. The landlord knows or reasonably should know about the glass. The posted case kept such strict liability for such PATENT defects. (And, for latent defects where he should have known like if he was a contractor for the buliding or had it built in the first place.)

While I am uncertain if the landlord is criminally liable to bring all things up to code, I do believe he desperately NEEDS to replace it. Strict liability issues tend to cause punitive damages. Insurance tends to not (Or, often can't due to public policy reasons.) pay for punitive damages.