“First, it must be shown that the defendant violated a statute or ordinance which ‘imposes a duty or prohibits an act for the benefit of a person or the public.’”
How later courts described this case
- “First, it must be shown that the defendant violated a statute or ordinance which ‘imposes a duty or prohibits an act for the benefit of a person or the public.’”
- grouping the elements required for a negligence per se claim into three
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TODD, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
With great respect and deference to the authorities and reasoning upon which the conclusion of the majority is based, I must register my disagreement with what I consider to be an unjust result.
The record reflects that the defective wiring was installed without the knowledge or consent of the defendant-landlord before the enactment of the city code which, according to the majority, made the landlord an insurer of the safety of the premises. This is contrary to the long established law of landlord and tenant in this State. Maxwell v. Davlo Corp. of Tenn., Tenn.App. 1989, 776 S.W.2d 528 , and authorities cited therein.
The facts of this case are tragic and regrettable, but were the result of negligence of a person unknown without concurrence of negligence of any party to this case.
The judgment should be reversed and the case dismissed.