Reasonable expectation of Protection from the elements.

[Zigner]

That doesn't apply in this situation.

 

[Aversan]

So you're saying I have to prove that they should've reasonably been able to both know about and do something about the situation.

 

[Aversan]

As I said, there was evidence within my apartment that there had been water damages from a previous incident, is that applicable as proof that they should reasonably know?

 

[Zigner]

As I said, there was evidence within my apartment that there had been water damages from a previous incident, is that applicable as proof that they should reasonably know?

No, it's evidence that there was prior water damage in a completely different place than you are having problems with.

 

[Aversan]

No, it's evidence that there was prior water damage in a completely different place than you are having problems with.

The reason I think it may be applicable is because I only had damage out to a certain point, and the damage from the previous incident goes further, so same place, just more.

 

[Zigner]

Ya know what - sue the bad guys in small claims court then. Of course, prepare to move at the end of your lease. Best of luck to you.

 

[Aversan]

Besides, they terraformed the whole area. its all been raised above street level on this side of the complex so that It'd be level with the rest of the buildings, so since they built it should they know about the possible drainage issues.

 

[Gail in Georgia]

Cripes on a cracker (or worse); if you don't agree with what management has told you then consider suing them in Small Claims for the value of your damaged personal property and let to judge decide who is "more right".

Otherwise this discussion can go on until the next flood.

Good luck
Gail

 

[not2cleverRed]

So you're saying I have to prove that they should've reasonably been able to both know about and do something about the situation.

Yes. That is what you have to be able to show.

As I said, there was evidence within my apartment that there had been water damages from a previous incident, is that applicable as proof that they should reasonably know?

If the damage is in the same area, from the same kind of water incursion, and they reasonably should have known about it (<-- presumably, at the very least the unit was checked over by them after the previous tenant moved and before you moved in), then yes, point this out to them.

In writing. On actual paper.

And then, do as Gail suggests.

 

[justalayman]

You state there was proof of previous water intrusion. Can you prove it was from water leaking into the unit through the same door or possibly a broken water pipe?

Can you prove the landlord was given notice water leaked through the sliding door?

If nobody ever told the landlord, they would have even less reason to know about the issue than you since they don’t live in that apartment.

So, to prevail you would have to prove the landlord knew or reasonably should have known of the issue and failed to remedy the condition. If you cannot do that, you will lose.


I would argue the issue with your insurance. This is not flooding in the terms generslly accepted as what would define a flood. This is water intrusion caused not by flooding conditions.

 

[Whoops2u]

I don't think the standard for land owner liability requires a standard they knew of the problem. In many states, they also have the duty to invitees to make a reasonable inspection to find latent dangers.

 

[Zigner]

I don't think the standard for land owner liability requires a standard they knew of the problem. In many states, they also have the duty to invitees to make a reasonable inspection to find latent dangers.

What latent danger? The OP acknowledges that in the past, even though water was present, it never created a problem. This can be argued as an act of God.

The OP's got a tough row to hoe on this one, that's for sure.

 

[Whoops2u]

What latent danger? The OP acknowledges that in the past, even though water was present, it never created a problem. This can be argued as an act of God.

The OP's got a tough row to hoe on this one, that's for sure.

Latent: (of a quality or state) existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden; concealed.
Danger: the possibility of suffering harm or injury.

I agree it can be argued as an act of God. But, just as changing the flow of water to your neighbor can result in liability, it can also lead to liability on the part of the landlord. If they made a temporary dam that changed the course of the water that happened to then flow into a tenant's apartment, they would be liable even though the water came from the sky as an act of God. I know that's not what happened here. What we have here is an odd difference between clear act of God and clear negligence/intent by daming up the water and directing it to the apartment. Where that needle ends up is not going to require hydrology studies in small claims court.

 

[Zigner]

Latent: (of a quality or state) existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden; concealed.
Danger: the possibility of suffering harm or injury.

I didn't ask "What is a latent danger"

 

[Whoops2u]

I didn't ask "What is a latent danger"

I know. I thought by defining it you would see the issue.

The danger is water damage to the tenant's property.
The latent part has to do with your statement of how the water never created a problem in the tenant's past.