Landlord/Tenant – Personal Injury – Townhouse Defect – Handrail – Notice – Other Handrail Failures

Listen to this article

Salek v. Nirenblatt, Nirenblatt & Hoffman (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-103-11, 3 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Charleston County Circuit Court. (Thomas L. Hughston Jr., J.) S.C. App. Unpub. Click here for the full-text opinion.

Holding: The plaintiff-tenant showed that there had been some problems with handrails in other townhomes at his complex, but he failed to show that there were enough such problems to give the defendant-landlord notice of a problem with the handrail in plaintiff’s townhome.

We affirm summary judgment for the landlord.

Plaintiff was injured in a fall in his townhome. He failed to establish that the landlord had notice of any defect in the handrail bracket in his townhome. Without notice, the landlord owed plaintiff no duty to repair it.

Under the S.C. Residential Landlord and Tenant Act “A person has notice of a fact if … [he] has actual knowledge of it … or … from all the facts and circumstances known to him at the time in question he has reason to know that it exists. A person ‘knows’ or ‘has knowledge’ of a fact if he has actual knowledge of it.” S.C. Code Ann. ¤ 27-40-240(A).

In addition, “A person ‘receives’ a notice or notification when … it comes to his attention.” ¤ 27-40-240(B)(1).

The plain language of these provisions recognizes any knowledge a landlord gains through common maintenance activities as notice.

We hold that knowledge of broken handrail brackets in other units did not place the landlord on notice of a defective handrail bracket in plaintiff’s townhome. However, we limit this ruling to the facts of this case.

The landlord’s maintenance supervisor indicated she received two types of complaint about handrail brackets: that they broke in two and that they pulled out of the wall. She had received both types of complaint but not in sufficient numbers to recall how many complaints.

Neither party produced further evidence of the number of handrail brackets installed or replaced due to failure at the complex. Accordingly, the facts and circumstances known to the landlord in June 2005 did not give it reason to know a handrail bracket in plaintiff’s townhome was defective.

Because plaintiff failed to establish that the landlord had notice of a defect in the handrail bracket in his townhome, the landlord was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in the landlord’s favor.

Affirmed.