concluding that the tenant’s “evidence of the problems themselves was enough” for the factfinder to “find that the apartment’s ‘as is’ value was zero, thereby allowing a complete abatement of rent”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the tenant’s “evidence of the problems themselves was enough” for the factfinder to “find that the apartment’s ‘as is’ value was zero, thereby allowing a complete abatement of rent”
- adopting Maryland law barring nuisance claims by tenants against landlords and requiring that such claims be raised under theory of negligence; explaining that there is “no reason to expand the scope of District of Columbia landlord-tenant law by importing into it the ‘impenetrable jungle’ of the law of nuisance”
- holding that evidence of persistent and extreme problems with decaying ceilings and rodent infestation sufficed to allow the jury to find an “as is” value of zero
- District of Columbia law is “consistent” with Maryland law that “nuisance ordinarily is not a separate tort in itself but a type of damage”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROGERS, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority opinion and write separately only to make clear that I do not read the majority to conclude that a nuisance claim may never be brought by a tenant against a landlord, but rather, that on the facts of this case, Fernandez failed to meet her burden of proof. See majority opinion at 1073-1074. The Maryland eases cited by the majority are not dispositive. In Little v. Union Trust Co., 45 Md.App. 178, 185 , 412 A.2d 1251, 1255 (1980), the Court of Special Appeals held that a cause of action for public nuisance was not available. In State ex rel. Bohon v. Feldstein, 207 Md. 20, 33 , 113 A.2d 100, 106 , the Court of Appeals held open the possibility of a nuisance claim where the landlord “demise[d] premises which are ... in themselves a nuisance....” Our decision in District of Columbia v. Fowler, 497 A.2d 456 (D.C.1985), addressed only the requirement of prior notice before the District may be held liable for maintaining a nuisance as a result of defective conditions in streets and highways. Moreover, as the majority acknowledges, see majority opinion at 1073 n. 9, a nuisance cause of action has generally been recognized under certain circumstances. *1076 See R. Schoshinski, American Law of Landlord and Tenant § 3.9 (1980 & 1990 Supp.) (and cases cited) (nuisance cause of action may be available where claim is based on conduct in “areas of premises over which the landlord has retained control”).