LATEST LOCK LAW LENGTHENS LANDLORD LAPSE LIABILITY
(California Only)

© Copyright 2014 Landlord.com

Landlords with properties in states other than California may still find this review of interest. If your state does not have a specific lock requirement, but relies on common law tort theory, your good faith compliance with the requirements of a considered statute, even if from another state, might help to head off liability in the event of a security failure.

Also, for all landlords, do not overlook the security requirements your insurance carrier may impose as a condition of coverage.

Effective July 1, 1998, the California Legislature imposed a detailed mandate of the types of locks and installations which a landlord is required to maintain on residential premises. The landlord is now exposed to liabilities under the constructive eviction and repair and deduct features of the Civil Code, and for breach of the implied warranty of habitability in the Code of Civil Procedure, providing remedies which did not automatically exist at common law under traditional premises liability tort theory.

California Civil Code Section 1941.3, the new lock law, imposes specific requirements on landlords with regard to doors and windows, which must be complied with effective July 1, 1998.

DOORS:

Each main entry door of a dwelling unit must be equipped with a deadbolt lock with the bolt extending a minimum of 13/16 of an inch beyond the strike edge of the door into the jamb in the locked position. This must be of a design and installed in compliance with all state and local laws pertaining to fire and life safety, and accessibility requirements for the disabled.

An existing deadbolt of not less than one-half of an inch, or those with a thumb-turn deadlock that have a strike plate attached to the doorjamb and a latch bolt that is held in a vertical position by a guard bolt, plunger or an auxiliary mechanism are deemed in compliance but must be replaced by one which complies with the previous paragraph when either repair or replacement are necessary.

Existing doors which cannot be equipped with a dead bolt must be equipped with a metal strap horizontal across the midsection of the door with a deadbolt which extends 13/16 of an inch beyond the strike edge of the door and protrudes into the doorjamb.

Sliding doors are exempt.

Doors equipped with other locks or security devices which are inspected and approved by a local or state governmental agency as providing adequate security are deemed to comply, even if they do not strictly fulfill the requirements of the new law.

WINDOWS:

All windows which are designed to be opened must be equipped with operable locking devices. Louvered windows, casement windows, and all windows more than 12 vertical or six horizontal feet from the ground, roof, or other platform are exempt.

COMMON DOORS:

Doors which open to the common areas must be equipped with "locking mechanisms that comply with applicable fire and safety codes." But doors need not be added to openings which had no doors prior to July 1, 1998. Presumably this also means that doors which did exist prior to that date cannot be removed.

The tenant has the obligation to notify the landlord of inoperable locks when the tenant discovers them, and the landlord's liability for noncompliance with the requirement does not commence until a reasonable time for repair has elapsed. However, the responsibility for ensuring that operable locks are installed in the first place is on the landlord.

In the event the landlord fails to comply with the statute, the tenant has the right to do the lock installation and deduct it from his rent, vacate the property as constructively evicted and be relieved from liability for the balance of his lease, or withhold rent and raise the lack of compliance as a defense to a non-payment of rent eviction. Before the statute, it was the burden of the tenant to show the existing security suite in the rental unit was a failure to comply with applicable housing codes which affected his health or safety. Now, it is apparently only necessary to show that the security did not comply with the objective measurements and requirements of the statute.

Rent collection on premises which lack proper locking devices may also subject the landlord to liability under Civil Code Section 1942.4.

The landlord would be well advised to ensure that his security arrangements comply both with this statute and any local ordinances pertaining to security. Engagement of a professional familiar with these requirements is recommended.

For the text of the lock statute, Civil Code Section 1941.3, and a review of liabilities properly to maintain premises fit for human habitation, look at our California Landlord/Tenant Law Overview.

Back To Alphabetical Back To Category