Roberts leased a duplex from Hughes. Later, without Hughes' ...

[tatyanajohnson]

Roberts leased a duplex from Hughes. Later, without Hughes' knowledge, Roberts sublet half of the duplex to Carrera. Carrera did not take proper care of the premises and her part of the duplex was substantially damaged as a result of her negligent use and abuse. Upon discovering the situation, Hughes notified Roberts that he was holding him responsible for any and all damages to Carrera's portion of the duplex, and that Roberts was to bear the costs of returning the premises to the original state of repair. Roberts replied that he had sublet to Carrera in good faith, had no further dealings with Carrera after the sublet agreement, had no knowledge of negligence, and could not be held liable for damages caused by another. Can Roberts be held liable?

Question 2

Morris rented an apartment in a relatively safe neighborhood of a major city. The door to Morris' apartment had two locks, and one of these was of the deadbolt variety designed to prevent burglaries. Morris left for work and engaged both locks. When Morris returned from work, Morris found that a burglar had broken into the apartment by forcibly breaking the locks. Morris sustained a substantial loss of money and property from this burglary. Morris notified the building superintendent and the owner who had the locks repaired. The attempted repairs were not entirely successful, inasmuch as the locks did not properly lock on some occasions. This enabled the door to be readily opened whenever anyone pushed against the door. Morris complained frequently about the condition of the locks, but the owner would take no further action regarding them. Finally, a burglar again broke into Morris' apartment, stealing substantial sums. This time, there was no breaking of the locks. The evidence was that the locks were not working properly at the time of the burglary. Morris sued the owner for the losses from the two burglaries. Decide.

[bobsmith]

Answer to Question 1

Yes. Roberts is liable. In the absence of an express covenant or promise to the contrary, the holder of the original lease does not escape liability through the act of subletting a portion of the lease.

Answer to Question 2

Generally, a landlord is not liable for crimes committed on the premises by third persons. Applying this rule, the landlord is not responsible for the first loss. When the criminal acts of third persons are foreseeable, however, the landlord may be held responsible for not taking reasonable steps to prevent loss to the tenant. Before the second burglary, Morris had complained about the defective condition of the locks on the door. The failure to fix the locks may result in landlord liability for the second burglary.