Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 130.00

130.01 I

ncident On Leased Premises--Latent Defect

If

a landlord either knows about an existing defect on the premises which is not

readily apparent, or knows of facts and circumstances which would indicate that there is

such a defect, then he must tell his tenant about it [before the tenant moves in] [at the

time of the letting]. However, a landlord need not warn his tenant about a defect which

the tenant could have discovered by a reasonable inspection.

He

ading, Notes on Use, and Comment revised February 2023.

Not

es on Use

If there is no dispute as to the fact the landlord knew about the defect, use the

following in lieu of the first sentence: “Usually a landlord must warn his tenant about

defects in the premises which are not readily apparent.”

Thi

s instruction is not intended for use when the incident occurs on that part of

the premises reserved for use by all the tenants, such as hallways or stairs. In that case,

IPI 130.02 should be used.

Do not

use this instruction where the plaintiff is a small child. See Rahn v.

Beurskens, 66 Ill.App.2d 423, 213 N.E.2d 301 (4th Dist.1966).

Co

mment

As of July 1, 2023, the Illinois Legislature amended certain statutes replacing “accident” with

“crash” to clarify that not all crashes are accidental. Crash encompasses all types of motor vehicle

impacts and collisions, including, but not limited to, an impact or collision caused by negligence, willful

and wanton conduct, or an intentional act. P.A. 102-0982. The IPI Committee recommends use of the

term “collision” or “incident” in lieu of the term “crash.”

A landlord must tell a tenant of a defect on the premises about which he knows or, from

facts known to him, should know, and which could not be discovered by the tenant after a

reasonable inspection. Mercer v. Meinel, 290 Ill. 395, 401; 125 N.E. 288, 290 (1919) (it

was proper to direct a verdict when there was no evidence “that the defendant knew or

from any fact or circumstance ought to have known” of an improperly vented exhaust

from water heater in bathroom); Borggard v. Gale, 205 Ill. 511, 514; 68 N.E. 1063, 1064

(1903) (verdict for defendant with regard to an obvious hole in the floor affirmed);

Sunasack v. Morey, 196 Ill. 569, 63 N.E. 1039 (1902) (it was error in effect to dismiss a

complaint that alleged sickness was from sewer gas, the presence of which was known to

the landlord and not known to the tenant); Hamilton v. Baugh, 335 Ill.App. 346, 82

N.E.2d 196 (4th Dist.1948) (plaintiffs did not prove that defendant landlord had

knowledge of the rotted condition of the privy into the vault of which they fell); Taylor v.

Geroff, 347 Ill.App. 55, 59; 106 N.E.2d 210, 212 (4th Dist.1952) (landlord had no

actual knowledge of defects that made furnace explode and therefore was entitled to the

directed verdict); Garcia v. Jiminez, 184 Ill.App.3d 107, 539 N.E.2d 1356, 132 Ill.Dec.

550 (2d Dist.1989)

(verdict for defendant proper where jury could find from

evidence that defendant did not and should not have known that the paint plaintiff's

child ingested was peeling or contained lead); Kordig v. Northern Const. Co., 18

Ill.App.2d 48, 151 N.E.2d 470 (1st Dist.1958) (absence of extra handrail on stairway

not a concealed or latent defect); Cromwell v. Allen, 151 Ill.App. 404 (4th

Dist.1909) (no

liability where defendant had no knowledge of rotted condition of

porch); Shields v. J.H. Dole Co., 186 Ill.App. 250 (2d Dist.1914) (no liability

for injury to tenant's servant where landlord and tenant both had knowledge of the

defective condition of the building); Soibel v. Oconto Co., 299 Ill.App. 518, 20

N.E.2d 309 (1st Dist.1939) (no evidence that landlord knew or should have known

of rotted floor); Elbers v. Standard Oil Co., 331 Ill.App. 207, 72 N.E.2d 874 (1st

Dist.1947) (lack of oil in hydraulic lift not a latent defect); Farmer v. Alton Bldg. &

Loan Ass'n, 294 Ill.App. 206, 13 N.E.2d 652 (4th Dist.1938) (jury question as to

whether a cesspool covering was defective and whether defendant knew or should

have known about the defect); Clerken v. Cohen, 315 Ill.App. 222, 42 N.E.2d 846 (1st

Dist.1942) (lack of gutters which caused ice to form not a latent defect); Sollars v.

Blayney, 31 Ill.App.2d 341, 176 N.E.2d 477 (3d Dist.1961) (judgment for plaintiff

proper where evidence showed landlord knew of defect in roof which caused puddle on

plaintiff's floor); Murphy v. Messerschmidt, 41 Ill.App.3d 659, 355 N.E.2d 78 (5th

Dist.1976), aff'd, 68 Ill.2d 79, 368 N.E.2d 1299, 11 Ill.Dec. 553 (1977) (texture of

stairs not latent defect where fall was caused by severe rain); Webster v. Heim, 80

Ill.App.3d 315, 399 N.E.2d 690, 35 Ill.Dec. 624 (3d Dist.1980) (a single exit, lack of fire

doors and provision of combustible furniture to other tenants were not latent defects).

A landlord has no duty, however, to notify a tenant of defects discovered after the

time of letting. Long v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 214 Ill.App. 517 (1st Dist.1919).