Ex parte Housing Authority of the City of Talladega, [Ms. SC-2023-0537, May 24, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). On certiorari review, the Court (Cook, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Bryan and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result; Sellers, J., dissents, which Wise, J., joins) affirms the Court of Civil Appeals’ 3-2 decision that the Housing Authority of the City of Talladega (“the Housing Authority”) was not entitled to a summary judgment dismissing negligence and wantonness claims asserted by its tenant, Harold Wallace, who fell as a result of missing handrails for his stairs. The trial court had concluded that the lack of handrails was an “open and obvious” danger and accordingly entered summary judgment. The Court granted certiorari review to determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals’ reversal of the summary judgment conflicts with Daniels v. Wiley, 314 So. 3d 1213 (Ala. 2020) which held that the landlord had no duty to the plaintiff tenant with respect to risks created by the open and obvious condition of a muddy sidewalk.
After reviewing its extensive precedent on a landlord’s duties to tenants, the Court holds that:
The duty in § 360 applies where the landlord ‘retains in his own possession any other part which the lessee is entitled to use as appurtenant to the part leased to him’ and encompasses “bodily harm caused to the [tenant] by a dangerous condition upon that part of the land retained in the lessor’s control, if the lessor by the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered the condition and the unreasonable risk involved therein and could have made the condition safe.” Ms. *10... The duty recognized in § 361 applies to portions of the leased premises the landlord ‘retains in his own control any other part which is necessary to the safe use of the leased part,” and runs to the “lessee and others lawfully upon the land with the consent of the lessee or a sub-lessee” and encompasses “bodily harm caused by a dangerous condition upon that part of the land retained in the lessor’s control, if the lessor by the exercise of reasonable care “(a) could have discovered the condition and the risk involved, and (b) could have made the condition safe.” Ms. *12.... After careful consideration, we see no reason to conclude that this Court’s decision in Daniels upended our entire body of case law concerning the separate and distinct duties described in §§ 360 and 361 of the Restatement [of Torts]. Ms. *29.
The Court expressly recognizes that “the openness and obviousness of a danger does not nullify” the landlord’s dut[ies]” under §§ 360 and 361. Ms. *13.