Lewis Operating Corp. v. Superior Court

Good Law
132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 849·200 Cal. App. 4th 940·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1410
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 10, 2011No. E052317California4,116 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

King, J.

I respectfully dissent.

I would conclude based on the plain language of Civil Code section 1953, subdivision (a)(5) that the “release and waiver” provision of section 29 of the *949 residential lease is “void as contrary to public policy.” The statute states: “(a) Any provision of a lease or rental agreement of a dwelling by which the lessee agrees to modify or waive any of the following rights shall be void as contrary to public policy: [][]... [f] (5) His right to have the landlord exercise a duty of care to prevent personal injury or personal property damage where that duty is imposed by law.” (Civ. Code, § 1953, subd. (a)(5), italics added.)

“Under settled canons of statutory construction, in construing a statute we ascertain the Legislature’s intent in order to effectuate the law’s purpose. [Citation.] We must look to the statute’s words and give them ‘their usual and ordinary meaning.’ [Citation.] ‘The statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous.’ [Citations.]” (Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 387-388 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 , 212 P.3d 736 ].) “ ‘In construing a statute, our first task is to look…

Lead Opinion

Miller, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this case, we are asked to determine whether a landlord who rents an apartment for residential use may enforce against the tenant an agreement to waive liability for the landlord’s negligence. In general, as we will explain, the answer would clearly be “no.” However, where the waiver in question relates to the landlord’s operation of a tenant-only health club or exercise facility, we conclude that the waiver violates no statute or public policy. Accordingly, the waiver is enforceable and bars real party in interest’s suit.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The action is one for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff and real party in interest John Costahaude (Costahaude) while using a treadmill at a health club or exercise facility operated by defendants and petitioners Lewis Operating Corporation and Homecoming II at Eastvale, LLC. The facility was offered as an “amenity” related to real party in interest’s tenancy. 1 A person identified as an agent or employee of defendant and petitioner Brickhouse Training LLC rolled a ball into, or under, the treadmill, causing the treadmill to flip upward and throw real party in interest off the machine.

The case comes to us…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.