Quote Quoting Mark47n
View Post
The landlord is not responsible for ALL damage, the landlord is responsible for certain types of damage.
Yes, I know, but we are not talking about holes in walls, 6mo only carpet with holes and stains on it or doors that were ripped off the jambs. We are talking about a plumbing leak that may have damaged the floor and the unit below. A plumbing leak that the tenant told the landlord about but the landlord chose not to fix.

Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
You are missing the critical piece. Knowing the cause of the problem is only the first step. The second step, which is what I addressed, is that you need to look to the statute and the lease to determine who is responsible for fixing that kind of problem. So if the lease put the responsibility for fixing this sort of problem on the tenant then the tenant is NOT released of responsibility. He pays for it because he agreed to that in the lease. It's really not that hard a concept. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing, I think.
That is a huge IF. Are you telling me that you have seen where an apt tenant is responsible for doing plumbing repairs and is responsible for repairing the damage that water causes? Well heck, maybe he's repsonsible for doing electrical repairs too and liable for the losses when the whole building burns down.

I think it is you that refuses to apply common sense and wants to use some statute to show your argument has an ounce of merit.

Your position is not grounded in reality. It is just a hypothetical argument filled with "if's."

You might be overestimating your powers of persuasion with 11 other people. But in any event I could keep you off he jury if I wanted.
I know my power of persuasion, I've made a living off it for the last thirty years. It just doesn't work so well when I am muzzled the way lawyers like to operate. Also, you are limited on disqualifying jurors...just as you'd be limited in other areas too...like knowing how plumbing leaks occur.

You say I ignore overreaching statutes. I say you ignore information posted here. The tenant reported this toilet leak but the owner did nothing about it. Did you forget that part or are you intentionally leaving things out hoping that I don't catch it.

And, of course, once I pointed out to the tenant that the lease says he pays for it, the chances are very good it never makes it to trial as the tenant would recognize he'd likely lose and agree to settle the matter. Over 90% of cases filed in court never make it to trial.
A lease will not specifically say that all plumbing repairs are to be performed by the tenant and all damages cuased by those leaks rest on the tenant. It just doesn't work that way. Besides, if damage was done, HO insurance pays. Oh, and to be exact, which you rarely are, 97% of cases settle.

BTW - This is exactly what I saw in my trial. Two lawyers venturing far outside their expertise and using their polished skills of misleading, confusing and inferring, but never really saying anything because they are not experts about the subject matter of the trial. They are just verbal dancers who do nothing but muzzle and twist the truth.