Share
A Delaware trial court has considered to what extent a landlord can be liable when tenants receive extensive exposure to molds and fungi which causes respiratory problems in the tenants.
Elizabeth Stroot and Joletta Watson ("Tenants") lived at Haverford Place Apartments ("Apartments"), which was owned by New Haverford Partnership ("Landlord"). During the time they lived at the Apartments, the Tenants and other residents noticed certain health problems, mostly of a respiratory nature. Eventually, the Tenants and other residents of the Apartments brought a lawsuit against the Landlord for injuries allegedly caused by the condition of the Landlord's property. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the Tenants totaling $1,040,000. The Landlord filed a motion with the trial court seeking to have the verdict reduced.
The Delaware Superior Court denied the Landlord's motion to reduce the amount of the jury verdict. The court considered whether the evidence the jury heard supported the amount awarded to the Tenants. The Tenants claimed that they were exposed to various toxic substances, such as mycotoxins, bacteria, and fungi, while living in the Apartments. The Tenants claimed that this exposure exacerbated certain health conditions, such as worsening asthma and causing tuberculosis to one of the Tenants. In its motion seeking to reduce the verdict, the Landlord argued that the evidence presented by the Tenants did not present scientific and medical evidence which demonstrated that the Apartments' conditions caused these health problems.
The Tenants used the testimony of various experts to demonstrate to the jury that the condition of the Apartments caused their alleged health problems. They presented evidence that there were high levels of molds and fungi in the Apartments, apparently caused by water damage on the premises. The Tenants testified that there were molds of varying colors in their apartments; a foul stench permeated the air; and moldy water had leaked into a bathroom on one occasion. An expert in lung diseases testified that she had examined one of the Tenants and documented the worsening of her asthma while living in the Apartments. This expert had also testified that certain molds such as Penicillium, Stachybotrys, and Asperigillus, can exacerbate various lung diseases. A microbiologist had conducted testing in the Apartments, and this expert testified that a heightened level of fungi and bacteria existed there. Another medical doctor had testified that one of the Tenants had probably suffered long-term cognitive disorders because of her intensive exposure to these bacteria. Upon a review of this testimony, the court ruled that the jury could reasonably conclude that the condition of the Apartments caused the Tenants' health problems. Therefore, the court ruled that the jury verdict was not unreasonable and so denied the Landlord's motion to reduce it.
Stroot v. New Haverford Partnership, No. 95C-05-074-HLA, 1999 WL 753916 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 17, 1999), affd New Haverford Partnership v. Stroot, 772 A.2d 792 (Del. 2001). To read a summary of this case, see below.
UPDATE- Stroot Affirmed
The Supreme Court of Delaware has affirmed a large jury verdict against a landlord for health problems experienced by tenants through extensive exposure to various molds and fungi on the landlord's property. To read an earlier summary of the case posted in The Letter of the Law and a more thorough discussion of the facts, see above.
Elizabeth Stroot and Joletta Watson ("Tenants") lived at Haverford Place Apartments ("Apartments"), which was owned by the New Haverford Partnership ("Landlord"). During the time they lived at the Apartments, the Tenants and other residents experienced certain health problems, mostly of a respiratory nature. Eventually, the Tenants and other residents of the Apartments brought a lawsuit against the Landlord for injuries allegedly caused by the condition of the Landlord's property. During the trial, the Tenants testified about their health problems, their observation of various fungi in their apartments, and they also used the testimony of various experts to demonstrate to the jury that the condition of the Apartments caused their health problems. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the Tenants totaling $1,045,000, which was reduced by 22% due to the contributory negligence of the Tenants. The trial court denied the Landlord's post-trial motion seeking a reduction of the verdict, and the Landlord appealed.
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the trial court's rulings and the jury verdict. The court first considered the argument made by the Landlord that it could not be liable under the theories alleged by the Tenants. First, the Landlord argued that it could not be held liable under a common-law (or judge-created law, as opposed to statutory laws) negligence theory, since at common law, a landlord had no duty to maintain a tenant's premises. Second, the Landlord argued that the enactment of Delaware's Landlord Tenant Code eliminated a tenant's negligence action. The court rejected these arguments, first ruling common-law negligence referred only to the common law elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation, and damages), not the common-law duties of a landlord. The court also rejected the Landlord's argument that Delaware's Landlord Tenant Code barred negligence lawsuits by tenants, finding that Delaware courts have ruled that the Code had no effect on these lawsuits.
The court next considered the Landlord's challenge to the trial court's refusal to reduce the jury verdict. The Landlord argued that the Tenants' actual monetary damages were approximately $30,000, and an award so far in excess of that amount should be reduced. The court rejected this argument, ruling that the trial court had correctly refused to reduce the award because the evidence supported the amount of the award because of the serious health problems experienced by the Tenants, some of which may be permanent. The court also rejected the Landlord's challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings, stating that the trial court's rulings were proper. Thus, the trial court's rulings and the jury verdict were affirmed.
New Haverford Partnership v. Stroot, 772 A.2d 792 (Del. 2001).