Search results

1) Reiterating that this is not certain. I may be wrong; a court might find it's reasonable for a landlord to position and test alarms themselves. I doubt it, but I may well be wrong. Even if they did find that, the landlord would have to justify how they chose the alarms, positioning, etc. and...

Nobody. Sometimes **** just happens. It isn't always somebody's fault.

Are you a lawyer? Are you suggesting that there is a non-delegable duty of care by landlord towards tenants, or are you suggesting that a court would find that employing a smoke alarm company was an unreasonable action by the landlord? :confused:

If a tenant doesn't report faults, the owner would almost certainly not be liable. The owner doesn't "have to" pay for an inspection to be done, it's a matter of how willing they are to take the risk of being a defendant in a negligence action. The main risks to a landlord in a negligence...

You won't get charged; you can only get charged for violation of statute. Your common law duty in negligence is tested as per the questions I outlined, and there hasn't yet been a test case. Statutory law prevails over common law where they contradict, but there is no statute that says...

I say again: that's statute. The common law duty of care in negligence is the same Australia-wide, and is likely higher than the minimum statutory requirement.

That's the statutory obligation only. The common law obligations are the same nationwide.

Sure there are. Professionals are people who do this for pay. I didn't say "qualified experts". You are suggesting that the duty of care by a landlord to a tenant is non-delegable. I'm pretty confident that whilst this is true for duty of employers to employees, schools to students, hospitals...

With regard to expertise, it's less important that they actually have any expertise, than that they are a business who is insured to perform the service. If you've hired somebody who says they're an expert, you - as a landlord - are in the clear in any negligence action. (Unless you knew they...

I couldn't find any relevant caselaw. It could happen if a tenant reported a broken bulb that the landlord agreed to have changed (e.g. non-standard bulb, up high, or something), and the landlord failed to do it in a reasonable timeframe and the tenant subsequently had a trip or something due...

Fair enough, but I wonder how many inspected homes would be compliant. The home I'm currently renting isn't; it doesn't have alarms in every bedroom.

The battery and functioning seems like the lower risk aspect; are you confident about the adequacy of the number, type, and location of your alarms?

You wouldn't, in that circumstance.

My take here: http://somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1274898&postcount=1