• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Recall

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

minagoob

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

While renting a house I got the owner approval to change old lamps in the house on my expense. Months after rent is ended I get a recall from the lamp provider. I inform the owner about it to avoid liability issues. The owner hire a person to remove the recalled lamps and install new lamps. Who is responsible to pay the expenses of the work and material for the new lamps?
 


OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
You. You elected to put defective lamps in the home. Had you told the landlord you were putting defective lamps in the home he surely would not have agreed.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Is the owner actuslly chasing you for the cost to replace the lamps?

And by lamps, just to be clear, you are speaking of what most people call light bulbs?

First, this questions smacks of homework. Second, unless there is something very odd about the situation asking the landlord if you can change the lamps is a very odd thing to ask. Most people will change a lamp upon it burning out unless the lease very slecifically states they cannot (unless they enjoy living in the dark until the landlord has the opportunity to change the lamp). Most tenants would have no problem using whatever style of lamp they wanted to use.

So, what lamps have a recall? You may alert others to the issue by publishing that info.

And if you want to get to the nitty gritty of the matter;

The manufacturer of the lamps actuslly is the one liable for the cost to replace the lamps. It was their negligence in producing a defective product that caused the costs to be incurred when replacing the defective lamps


Ohroadwarriors statement is defective unless you knew the lamps were defective when installing them.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Is the owner actuslly chasing you for the cost to replace the lamps?

And by lamps, just to be clear, you are speaking of what most people call light bulbs?
I think maybe minagoob needs to return to clarify what s/he means by "lamps."

I read the original post as meaning new light fixtures were installed and not light bulbs. Light bulbs are not really installed and burned-out bulbs hardly seem to be something a landlord would hire someone to replace.

That said, "lamps" generally refer to floor and table lighting ... so who knows what minagoob is referring to. :)
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I think maybe minagoob needs to return to clarify what s/he means by "lamps."

I read the original post as meaning new light fixtures were installed and not light bulbs. Light bulbs are not really installed and burned-out bulbs hardly seem to be something a landlord would hire someone to replace.

That said, "lamps" generally refer to floor and table lighting ... so who knows what minagoob is referring to. :)
There's my training showing through.

Per the National Electrical Code a light bulb is in fact referred to as a lamp. A lamp, as you define it is luminaire. (.Somebody is European i think since they also are using metric resignstions for conduit size as well).

But as to hiring somebody to replace light bulbs; very common. Especially if this is an apartment complex that is precisely what they would do more often than not.


Now, if you want to get to a more common definition of lamps and such;

A lamp is a moveable light fixture using a cord to connect it to the electrical source. Most people bring their own lamps to the party. A light fixture, without being designated as portable or "cord connected" is something one would attach permanently to the wall (sconce or coach light is a typical example) or a ceiling.

So I suppose it would be beneficial for op to refine his statement.

Ultimately i still see the manufacturer as liable for the costs to replace any item that was found to be defective after it was installed by the tenant. Only if the tenant was aware they were installing defective devices would I see the tenant liable for the cost to remedy the situation
 

quincy

Senior Member
There's my training showing through.

Per the National Electrical Code a light bulb is in fact referred to as a lamp. A lamp, as you define it is luminaire. (.Somebody is European i think since they also are using metric resignstions for conduit size as well).

But as to hiring somebody to replace light bulbs; very common. Especially if this is an apartment complex that is precisely what they would do more often than not.


Now, if you want to get to a more common definition of lamps and such;

A lamp is a moveable light fixture using a cord to connect it to the electrical source. Most people bring their own lamps to the party. A light fixture, without being designated as portable or "cord connected" is something one would attach permanently to the wall (sconce or coach light is a typical example) or a ceiling.

So I suppose it would be beneficial for op to refine his statement.

Ultimately i still see the manufacturer as liable for the costs to replace any item that was found to be defective after it was installed by the tenant. Only if the tenant was aware they were installing defective devices would I see the tenant liable for the cost to remedy the situation
I guess I was using (and then again not using) a layman's definition, huh? :)

I agree with justalayman that the manufacturer of the "lamps" ultimately would be liable for any costs incurred in repairing or replacing the recalled/defective lamps, and for any damage or injuries caused by the faulty lamps.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
I disagree. LL had a perfectly safe legal building until tenant damaged it by installing unsafe fixtures.
they were not deemed unsafe until after the tenant installed them ergo he did not install unsafe fixtures.


and tenant did not damage anything. The defective fixtures did, if anything was actually damaged.


using your statement, if the brakes on a car are deemed defective on Mar 1 2000, if I drive the car on Jan 1 2000 and a brake failure occurs due to the defective issue not determined until Mar 1 2000, I am somehow liable for driving a car with defective brakes. Sorry but it doesn't work like that. Now, if I drive the car after Mar 1 2000 knowing there is a defect and the defect causes an accident, the manufacturer is still going to be the primary target (deep pockets) but I would still bear some liability as I chose to drive a car knowing it had a brake problem.



and due to the issue in the thread:

always look for the "UL listed" label. It could save your life.
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
I think you will find the lease contains a clause for damages to premises caused by the renter and their responsibility to pay same. OP can always battle it out in court at the end of his tenancy when he tries to get a refund of his deposit and allow a judge to decide.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I think you will find the lease contains a clause for damages to premises caused by the renter and their responsibility to pay same. OP can always battle it out in court at the end of his tenancy when he tries to get a refund of his deposit and allow a judge to decide.
It doesn't matter what the lease says (plus minagoob is no longer renting the unit). If the damage to a rental unit is not the fault of the tenant (which in this case it wasn't) the tenant cannot be held liable for the damage.

The landlord/owner gave his approval for the tenant to have the lamps installed and the tenant installed them. The lamps installed, however, were defective - not because of what the tenant did but because the manufacturer of the lamps made a defective product.

The manufacturer of a defective product is liable for damages (harm, injury) to a consumer caused by the defective product.
 
Last edited:

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
I disagree, had tenant not created the damages, landlord would not need to pay them.
http://law.justia.com/codes/washington/2014/title-59/chapter-59.18/section-59.18.130/

(3) Properly use and operate all electrical, gas, heating, plumbing and other fixtures and appliances supplied by the landlord;

(4) Not intentionally or negligently destroy, deface, damage, impair, or remove any part of the structure or dwelling, with the appurtenances thereto, including the facilities, equipment, furniture, furnishings, and appliances, or permit any member of his or her family, invitee, licensee, or any person acting under his or her control to do so. Violations may be prosecuted under chapter 9A.48 RCW if the destruction is intentional and malicious;

(8) Not engage in any activity at the rental premises that is:

(a) Imminently hazardous to the physical safety of other persons on the premises;

(10) Upon termination and vacation, restore the premises to their initial condition except for reasonable wear and tear or conditions caused by failure of the landlord to comply with his or her obligations under this chapter. The tenant shall not be charged for normal cleaning if he or she has paid a nonrefundable cleaning fee.





Negligent torts are not deliberate actions, but instead present when an individual or entity fails to act as a reasonable person to someone whom he or she owes a duty to.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I disagree, had tenant not created the damages, landlord would not need to pay them.
http://law.justia.com/codes/washington/2014/title-59/chapter-59.18/section-59.18.130/

(3) Properly use and operate all electrical, gas, heating, plumbing and other fixtures and appliances supplied by the landlord;

(4) Not intentionally or negligently destroy, deface, damage, impair, or remove any part of the structure or dwelling, with the appurtenances thereto, including the facilities, equipment, furniture, furnishings, and appliances, or permit any member of his or her family, invitee, licensee, or any person acting under his or her control to do so. Violations may be prosecuted under chapter 9A.48 RCW if the destruction is intentional and malicious;

(8) Not engage in any activity at the rental premises that is:

(a) Imminently hazardous to the physical safety of other persons on the premises;

(10) Upon termination and vacation, restore the premises to their initial condition except for reasonable wear and tear or conditions caused by failure of the landlord to comply with his or her obligations under this chapter. The tenant shall not be charged for normal cleaning if he or she has paid a nonrefundable cleaning fee.





Negligent torts are not deliberate actions, but instead present when an individual or entity fails to act as a reasonable person to someone whom he or she owes a duty to.
A consumer is not responsible for the damage caused by a defective product.

I suppose if you eat spinach tainted at a packaging plant, you are to blame for the salmonella? The hoverboard you purchased catches on fire and you are held liable for the fire? Your child is poisoned by a lead-painted toy and your child is to blame?

This is not a landlord/tenant matter. This is a product liability matter.

You are wrong here, OHR.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Negligence does not apply here, at least in regard for the tenant. At the time of installation there was no notice of it being a defective product becaus it has not been deemed a defective product...yet. Only if the op was aware or should have been aware there was some issue with the product and yet still installs it would there be negligence.

Using your own words;

Negligent torts are not deliberate actions, but instead present when an individual or entity fails to act as a reasonable person to someone whom he or she owes a duty to.

Op fulfilled their duty by installing what, at the time of installation, was an approved light fixture. That's it. That's all there is to it.
 

minagoob

Junior Member
When posting "LAMP" i meant a CEILING LIGHT FIXTURES - I hope it clears the question

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

While renting a house I got the owner approval to change old lamps in the house on my expense. Months after rent is ended I get a recall from the lamp provider. I inform the owner about it to avoid liability issues. The owner hire a person to remove the recalled lamps and install new lamps. Who is responsible to pay the expenses of the work and material for the new lamps?

When posting "LAMP" i meant a CEILING LIGHT FIXTURES - I hope it clears the question
 

quincy

Senior Member
When posting "LAMP" i meant a CEILING LIGHT FIXTURES - I hope it clears the question
That is what I sort of thought you meant, minagoob. Thank you for clarifying this for all of us, though. :)

There have been a number of different ceiling light fixtures recalled by light manufacturers. They have been recalled for various reasons. If you forwarded to your former landlord the notification you received from the manufacturer on the recall, which should have included information on what consumers who purchased the product need to do with the defective product, that is the most the landlord can expect of you.

Usually the recall allows for a return of product for a full refund of the purchase price (although one light manufacturer with lights the subject of a recall is providing repair "hooks" instead, to prevent the lights from crashing to the floor).

Good luck with your landlord. The law appears to favor you.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top