DocketNumber: File SC-H-3198-HD
Citation Numbers: 457 A.2d 666, 38 Conn. Super. Ct. 67, 38 Conn. Supp. 67, 1982 Conn. Super. LEXIS 258
Judges: Maloney
Filed Date: 10/6/1982
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/3/2024
The defendant tenants in this small claims action to collect rent allegedly due and unpaid assert as a special defense that they were excused from the obligation to pay rent because at all times during the period in question the landlord had failed to comply with the state fire code so as materially to affect the defendants' safety.
Section
Subsection (a) of General Statutes §
We interpret these provisions of the statutes as relieving a tenant of the obligation to pay rent for any period during which his landlord has failed to comply with a provision of the state fire code that materially affects his safety. The clear purpose of subsection (b) of §
The only question remaining is whether the absence of smoke detectors constitutes a material risk to the safety of the defendant tenant. At the trial, the deputy fire marshall for the city of Hartford, a member of the Hartford fire department for thirty years, testified on behalf of the defendants. He testified that the major cause of death in residential fires is smoke inhalation. He stated that smoke detectors provide an effective early warning system of the presence of smoke. Although the defendants introduced some evidence which tended to show that detectors are unreliable under some circumstances and require careful maintenance, we are persuaded that in general they are important and effective devices that contribute significantly to safety. Accordingly, we find that the failure to install them in violation of the state fire code poses a material safety hazard to those persons occupying the affected dwelling units. Pursuant to the above cited statutes, therefore, the defendants were not obligated to pay rent during the period when smoke detectors were not installed.
Judgment may enter for the defendants.
Gayle v. Young, No. Spbr 9409-27973 (Feb. 6, 1995) , 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1198-X ( 1995 )
Fournier v. Girardin, No. Hcn-9907-026 B.R. (Jan. 26, 2000) , 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 1425-g ( 2000 )
Whitaker v. Amato, No. Hcnh 9711-133 (Feb. 24, 1998) , 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 1603 ( 1998 )
Slaughter v. McFarlane, No. Cvnh 9112-4893 (Sep. 25, 1992) , 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 9102 ( 1992 )
Bray v. Bray , 51 Conn. Supp. 133 ( 2008 )
Bordiere v. Ramirez, No. Spn 9910-31769-Nb (Dec. 18, 1999) , 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16716 ( 1999 )
Bordiere v. Ramirez, No. Spn 9910-31769-Nb (Dec. 23, 1999) , 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 359 ( 1999 )
Velezis v. Finch, No. Spwa 9704-17988 (May 15, 1997) , 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2505 ( 1997 )
Na-Mor, Inc. v. Espinosa, No. Cv18-6889 (Jun. 15, 1999) , 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6976 ( 1999 )
Cook v. Costen, No. Spnh 9804-54417 (Apr. 28, 1998) , 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 149 ( 1998 )
Bordiere v. Ramirez, No. Spn 9910-31769-Nb (Dec. 18, 1999) , 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16933-q ( 1999 )
Chauncy Harris Assoc. v. Brathwaite, No. H 9011-58241 (May ... , 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 4056 ( 1991 )
Housing Authority, Hartford v. Williams, No. 92006-65824 (... , 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 9310 ( 1992 )