Durham, North Carolina – A recent ruling by the state Supreme Court in North Carolina has barred a tenant from suing his landlord for negligence after being severely burned in a natural gas explosion within his rental home. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the landlord had been informed of necessary house repairs or a potential gas leak on the property, ultimately dismissing the civil claims filed by the tenant, Anthony Terry.
In the unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeals, which had allowed Terry’s claims to proceed to trial. The incident in question occurred in April 2017 when Terry suffered severe burns after turning on a light in the bathroom of his Durham home, triggering an explosion. The court records revealed that Terry spent four months in a coma and required medical care until the end of 2018. Even years after the incident, Terry continued to experience constant pain and was largely bedridden.
According to the Court’s majority opinion, there was a water leak in the bathroom that had caused significant damage to the property. Additionally, a corroded pipe in the crawlspace supplied natural gas to the furnace, leading to a potentially hazardous situation. Despite multiple visits from the natural gas company and fire department in the months preceding the explosion due to reports of a gas odor, the landlord, William V. Lucas, was not found negligent.
Associate Justice Tamara Barringer, who supported the decision to dismiss Terry’s lawsuit, emphasized that under the common law, landlords are not obligated to inspect leased properties. Furthermore, Barringer noted that Terry had not provided Lucas with notice of the issues on the property, as required by the state’s Residential Rental Agreements Act of 1977. This law mandates landlords to address repairs only after being formally notified of the problem.
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Allison Riggs argued that Lucas should be held accountable for maintaining the property in safe working condition. Riggs contended that the landlord had a duty to ensure the property’s facilities and appliances were in good and safe order, as outlined in the 1977 law. However, the majority of the court found that without prior notice of the issues, Lucas could not be held responsible for the damages incurred by Terry.
Despite the tragic outcome for Terry, the case serves as a reminder of the legal responsibilities of landlords and tenants in maintaining rental properties. The decision by the state Supreme Court underscores the importance of communication between landlords and tenants regarding property maintenance and repairs to prevent such tragic incidents in the future.