## Facts

- Ralph Guthrie leased a duplex in Spokane, Washington, to Chris and Melissa Dexheimer, tenants participating in a federally funded rental assistance program administered by the Spokane Housing Authority (SHA).
- Before move-in, SHA inspected and identified deficiencies, including a garage-door problem: a wheel on the left side was out of its track and a bolt was missing from a bracket.
- The SHA inspector placed the wheel back in the track, and Mr. Dexheimer installed the missing bolt; a follow-up inspection six days later found the deficiencies corrected, and the Dexheimers moved in.
- Less than four months later, while Mr. Dexheimer was opening the garage door, it came out of the right-side track, fell, and struck him, causing serious injury.
- An expert attributed the failure to improper alignment of the garage door.
- The Dexheimers sued Guthrie for negligent failure to maintain and repair the garage door and also sued the door manufacturer, CDS, Inc.; the Dexheimers settled with CDS, leaving Guthrie as the principal defendant at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could award traditional tort monetary damages based on violations of the Washington Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA), RCW 59.18.060.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on lease-based duties when breach of contract was not pleaded as a separate cause of action.
3. Whether the instructional errors were prejudicial where the verdict did not clearly show the theory on which liability was found.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred by permitting the jury to award traditional tort damages based solely on RLTA violations.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred by instructing on duties arising from the rental agreement where contract breach was not pleaded.
- Because the verdict could have rested on improper statutory and contract theories, the instructional errors were prejudicial.
- The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on liability only.

## Legal Principles

- A tenant may assert claims against a landlord under the RLTA, the rental agreement, or common-law negligence, but those theories do not provide the same remedies.
- The RLTA establishes statutory duties and a remedial scheme; it does not broadly authorize common-law personal-injury damages for each violation of RCW 59.18.060.
- RLTA standards may inform the scope of a landlord’s duty of reasonable care in a negligence action, but an RLTA violation does not automatically establish liability for, or entitlement to, traditional tort damages.
- Jury instructions should not submit unpleaded contract theories as an independent basis for liability; doing so risks lack of notice and doctrinal confusion.
- When instructions allow liability on multiple theories and the verdict form does not separate the basis for liability, an appellate court may order a new trial if it cannot determine whether liability rested on a valid legal theory.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed a tenant personal-injury verdict because the jury was allowed to award tort damages on the basis of RLTA and unpleaded contract duties; the case was remanded for a new trial on liability under proper negligence instructions, with RLTA standards usable only as evidence of the duty of care rather than an independent damages source.


Dexheimer v. CDS, Inc., 104 Wash. App. 464, 17 P.3d 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)