Reasonable expectation of Protection from the elements.

[Aversan]

It's their property, and I haven't been here long enough to see this level of rainfall before.

 

[Zigner]

The question isn't if they were to reasonably know, but if it should've been within their reasonable control.

If they don't reasonably know, then how can they reasonably control it?

 

[Aversan]

I agree with /u/not2cleverRed, this does not seem to be flooding damage. I can understand why damage from the rain is being denied by renters insurance and the landlord, its just that, depending on what the OP meant by "improper drainage" it seems there could be some direct negligence involved.

Of course, that does not give an answer because of the specific provision in the rental agreement denying liability for such occurrences.

I'm not sure what I'd do in my state in similar circumstances. I'm not going to go on the line for damage from rain in general, but if I did something wrong on redirecting natural flow or if I did not take reasonable steps to prevent a known problem, I'd consider paying it as a landlord. In Ohio, with the facts we have, I might split the difference.

If I were a tenant, I might consider suing in small claims even though I have no idea what a court might decide in Ohio as there are a lot of laws that might interact. It would put the kibosh on a positive relationship with the landlord going forward, but, $1,000 is getting close to the level it becomes worth it to sue if you think you have a valid claim.

By improper drainage, I mean that the ground is higher on the right side than the left, causing the water to gather on that left side which is trapped against a wall. The right side is higher but not so much that I expected it wouldn't drain that way before going into my apartment.

 

[Zigner]

So what makes you think that they would know that it wouldn't drain based on extremely heavy rains (as opposed to average rains)?

Really, as I said, I think this is going to be on you.

 

[Aversan]

If they don't reasonably know, then how can they reasonably control it?

Ok, but how was I to reasonably know. They've owned the property for however long, and I've never seen heavy rain fall here before, so how can I be expected to tell them that the rain water is going to go into my apartment.

 

[Aversan]

I'd assume they've had previous tenants who have these larger levels of rainfall.

 

[Zigner]

Ok, but how was I to reasonably know. They've owned the property for however long, and I've never seen heavy rain fall here before, so how can I be expected to tell them that the rain water is going to go into my apartment.

For the purposes of deciding who is liable under your rental agreement, whether or not you would reasonably know is not relevant.

 

[Zigner]

I'd assume they've had previous tenants who have these larger levels of rainfall.

Now you just need to prove it.


ETA: Maybe there's never been a problem before...

 

[Aversan]

Now you just need to prove it.


ETA: Maybe there's never been a problem before...

If them knowing is relevant, and I am expected to be the one to notify them, then me knowing is relevant.

I feel that I may have proof that previous tenants have had water in the apartment before. The Tack strips were clearly water damaged in areas that I didn't have water.

 

[Whoops2u]

By improper drainage, I mean that the ground is higher on the right side than the left, causing the water to gather on that left side which is trapped against a wall. The right side is higher but not so much that I expected it wouldn't drain that way before going into my apartment.

Is that the way the ground is or was there some change in how the water flows because of construction?

 

[Zigner]

If them knowing is relevant, and I am expected to be the one to notify them, then me knowing is relevant.

I understand where you're coming from, but you are technically wrong. Whether or not you knew (or could reasonably have known) has no bearing on their liability. There are circumstances where you would have had no way of knowing, yet they could very reasonably have known, while there are also circumstances where they would have no reasonable way of knowing, while you were absolutely aware of it.

 

[Aversan]

I understand where you're coming from, but you are technically wrong. Whether or not you knew (or could reasonably have known) has no bearing on their liability. There are circumstances where you would have had no way of knowing, yet they could very reasonably have known, while there are also circumstances where they would have no reasonable way of knowing, while you were absolutely aware of it.

I understand, Thanks for the clarification. So what effect does them having or not having a reasonable way of knowing to their liability? If it's something within their reasonable control aren't they liable, regardless of their ignorance to the situation?

 

[Zigner]

If they can't/don't reasonably know about it, how can they reasonably control it?

 

[Aversan]

Is that the way the ground is or was there some change in how the water flows because of construction?

This entire property was made to be this way, raised levels of ground so spaces could be level, (or mostly level in this case). or in some cases raised a lot so the parking lot could be large enough and not slanted.

It depends on what question you're asking, I know there was construction recently removing a lot of the trees, and bushes, and putting down a lot of dirt and mulch.

 

[Aversan]

If they can't/don't reasonably know about it, how can they reasonably control it?

I see what you point is, but isn't ignorance no excuse, "Ignorantia juris non excusat" or whatever that saying is.