Landlord Negligence

[954Rental]

$2K? Pffft...I have used frames worth more than that.

My bike tires cost me a million dollars each, so there.

and if I had a $2k bike and it was parked where someone can steal it and I know the fence is broken and will be for the whole weekend I would take it upstairs and cram it into the studio.

 

[BunniD]

Because quality bikes are expensive. Bikes suitable for semi pro or pro levels are even more expensive. I have a family member who is an Iron Man triathlete. He spent $4500 on the frame alone of just ONE of his 3 bikes. His tires are about $200 each. The bike he uses for most of his competitions was $6500. Quality costs.

Precisely. My fiance says this is his "cheap" bike that he built just for commuting to work. It's not an incredible amount of money but he does need a replacement ASAP.

 

[tranquility]

My bike tires cost me a million dollars each, so there.

and if I had a $2k bike and it was parked where someone can steal it and I know the fence is broken and will be for the whole weekend I would take it upstairs and cram it into the studio.

The funny thing is, it seems you don't believe me. It's true. And that's just the frame. No chain, wheels, tires, crankset, seat, seatpost, stem, handlebars, gears, brakes, or any of the other things on it. Of course, all those other items I got the cheapest and heaviest items I could find.

Now, I did not have those things when I lived in an apartment and they were/are all kept in a locked garage with a security system. But, that is not really relevant to the legal issues in the thread, is it?

 

[LdiJ]

I am pretty sure that the landlord has some liability here. Despite people's opinions of what the OP's boyfriend should or shouldn't have done, the landlord provided a secured garage and when the security failed, took far too long to repair the problem.

 

[BunniD]

I am pretty sure that the landlord has some liability here. Despite people's opinions of what the OP's boyfriend should or shouldn't have done, the landlord provided a secured garage and when the security failed, took far too long to repair the problem.

Thank you. We were just told by their corporate representative that stating "controlled access secured garage" does not mean what we think it means and basically to go screw ourselves and file an insurance claim.

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you. We were just told by their corporate representative that stating "controlled access secured garage" does not mean what we think it means and basically to go screw ourselves and file an insurance claim.

You should probably do that. Why?, because your insurance company will handle it from here on. Yeah, you will have to pay the deductible, but they will go after your landlord and you might eventually get your deductible back.

 

[BunniD]

You should probably do that. Why?, because your insurance company will handle it from here on. Yeah, you will have to pay the deductible, but they will go after your landlord and you might eventually get your deductible back.

I am filing a claim, my issue is now that the building I selected based on the fact that they both allowed pets of my size AND provided controlled access (secured) parking for bicycles and vehicles is now stating they make no guarantees to provide the security of a working gate and I have 11 months left here or am liable for the rent of the next 11 months.

 

[tranquility]

A "security" parking lot promised on the lease is different from a parking lot that has security features. But, the difference is facts and circumstances that I don't think rise to the level of a contractual duty in this case. I could be wrong as it seems there are some facts presented regarding wording that landlords with training are told to avoid. But, without a higher contractual duty, the premises liability will be as I said previously.

The business must take reasonable steps to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm. That does not mean harm that might generally happen, but harm that specifically targets the issue.

 

[LdiJ]

I am filing a claim, my issue is now that the building I selected based on the fact that they both allowed pets of my size AND provided controlled access (secured) parking for bicycles and vehicles is now stating they make no guarantees to provide the security of a working gate and I have 11 months left here or am liable for the rent of the next 11 months.

Again, let your insurance company handle it. No, you don't get to break your lease based on this situation alone.

 

[single317dad]

I can't imagine why anyone would spend 2K on a bicycle.

The local college kids park their $1000 and (way) up Little 500 bicycles in their dorm rooms all the time. Why? Because they don't believe they're safe locked up on the racks outside. That "there wasn't any other place to park the bike" is a problem for OP's case.

 

[LdiJ]

The local college kids park their $1000 and (way) up Little 500 bicycles in their dorm rooms all the time. Why? Because they don't believe they're safe locked up on the racks outside. That "there wasn't any other place to park the bike" is a problem for OP's case.

Maybe...it depends on the rest of the lease.

 

[BunniD]

Again, let your insurance company handle it. No, you don't get to break your lease based on this situation alone.

I'm not stating this is an excuse to break my lease, simply that it's ridiculous that we selected this place based on the fact that they offer the "controlled access" feature and she plainly stated that they have no responsibility to maintain the gate to control access.

 

[tranquility]

The local college kids park their $1000 and (way) up Little 500 bicycles in their dorm rooms all the time. Why? Because they don't believe they're safe locked up on the racks outside. That "there wasn't any other place to park the bike" is a problem for OP's case.

Not really. As I said before, the value of the bike is not really relevant to the legal issues. It is conversion if a person steals a $10 bike I left out on the porch, just as it is if I left out a $1,000 bike. While conversion is an intentional tort, negligence is the same way. If there is a duty and that duty is breached, if the breach causes damages we have negligence. Now, we might claim extra steps should be taken with a more expensive item, but it does not really change the underlying issues.

If a new driver is driving along and looks at a pretty girl on the corner (Forgetting we tend to drive towards where we look. Remember your early driving days checking the blind spot?) tapping on the vehicle in the next lane, he is going to be liable for the damages because he's negligent. The issues do not change if the pretty girl is driving the car he taps. The issues do not change if the car she is driving is a Ferrari and the new driver is looking at the car and not the girl. Personally, it scares me a bit that a fender bender that is my fault with an average car might cost me hundreds while a fender bender with a Ferrari could cost me tens of thousands. It doesn't seem fair and there should be some way to minimize the risk of my negligence to reasonably foreseeable damages. But, the forseeability issue gets to duty and not to damages. (aka eggshell plaintiff) There is no shifting of blame for my negligence just because the beauty of the vehicle I hit increased the chance I would hit it.

If there is negligence on the part of the landlord, it is going to be negligence even if a prudent person might have brought up the bike to his room.

Now, an assumption of the risk theory was mentioned earlier if the OP knew the garage was damaged. I think the elements of that would not apply. If I go into a McDonalds in a sketchy area where some hooligans are milling about the front door, that McDonalds will still have the same duty to me if a crime were to happen by a third party as to if I walked into the finest McDonalds in the land. The sketchy McDonalds may have to take more steps to protect from breaching that duty if there have been criminal acts done by the hooligans in the past, but the fact I made the choice to go into the sketchy McD's does not mean I assumed the risk.

 

[954Rental]

One thing in the OP's favor is that he brought up the issue of the non working gate and they claimed they could not fix it because it was a holiday. They should have fixed it right away, it's negligent of them no to do anything. They didn't only claim that the parking would be secured on work days or during normal working hours.

But I wonder where this bike is kept. Was it locked up, was it outside was it in a garage?

 

[Zigner]

Now, an assumption of the risk theory was mentioned earlier if the OP knew the garage was damaged. I think the elements of that would not apply. If I go into a McDonalds in a sketchy area where some hooligans are milling about the front door, that McDonalds will still have the same duty to me if a crime were to happen by a third party as to if I walked into the finest McDonalds in the land. The sketchy McDonalds may have to take more steps to protect from breaching that duty if there have been criminal acts done by the hooligans in the past, but the fact I made the choice to go into the sketchy McD's does not mean I assumed the risk.

I see your point on this, but I don't think it's a good analogy. A better analogy may be that of believing the area that you leave your expensive item to be secured against thievery by way of a large, locked gate. The only reason you'd consider leaving your expensive item there is because of the safety that gate provides. But, one day, that gate is broken and left open, yet you still leave your expensive item there.