## Facts

- John Henrioulle, an unemployed widower with two children receiving a public rent subsidy, leased an apartment from Marin Ventures, Inc. in San Rafael, California.
- The residential lease was a printed form containing a broad exculpatory/indemnity clause stating the owner would not be liable for injuries or property damage on the premises or in common areas “no matter how caused,” and requiring the tenant to hold the owner harmless.
- There was evidence of a shortage of low-income housing in Marin County, bearing on the tenant’s bargaining power and ability to obtain alternative housing.
- Henrioulle fractured his wrist after tripping over a rock on a common stairway of the apartment building.
- Evidence suggested deficiencies in the landlord’s maintenance of common areas, including recent termination of an unsatisfactory on-site manager responsible for cleaning and limited recent work by another maintenance worker.
- Henrioulle sued the landlord for personal injuries based on negligent maintenance of the common area.

## Issues

1. Whether a broad exculpatory clause in a residential lease is enforceable to bar a tenant’s personal injury claim arising from the landlord’s negligence in maintaining common areas under the landlord’s control.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial based on the lease clause after the jury found the landlord negligent and apportioned comparative fault.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the lease’s exculpatory clause invalid and unenforceable as against public policy as applied to personal injuries caused by the landlord’s negligence in maintaining common areas.
- Applying the JNOV standard, the court accepted the jury’s findings of landlord negligence, damages, and comparative fault, treating enforceability of the clause as a question of law.
- The court reversed the orders granting JNOV and a new trial.
- The court directed reinstatement of the jury’s verdict and the corresponding judgment for the tenant (reflecting comparative fault).

## Legal Principles

- Exculpatory provisions in residential leases that purport to exempt landlords from liability for their own negligence, particularly regarding safety in common areas under the landlord’s control, are void as against public policy.
- In assessing such clauses, courts consider the public interest in safe housing, the essential nature of residential shelter, and the practical inequality of bargaining power in standardized, take-it-or-leave-it residential leases.
- A landlord who retains control of common areas owes a continuing duty to maintain those areas in a reasonably safe condition; contractual terms cannot eliminate that duty where public policy requires accountability.
- On review of a JNOV, conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the jury’s verdict; legal enforceability of a contract term remains a question of law.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a residential lease clause that attempted to immunize a landlord from negligence liability for injuries in common areas, reversed the trial court’s post-verdict relief for the landlord, and reinstated the tenant’s jury award based on comparative fault.


Henrioulle v. Marin Ventures, Inc., 20 Cal. 3d 512, 573 P.2d 465 (Cal. 1978)