Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Tenant grievance

The landlord, the roofer, or both.

Re: Tenant grievance

You didn't adequately explain what happened. Generally speaking, the landlord is liable to the tenant for the foreseeable consequences of his negligence in carrying out a duty owed to the tenant. The landlord has a duty to keep a good roof over the tenant's head (and belongings). However, not all "roofing disasters" have any connection with landlord negligence. If a tree fell on the roof, or a tornado ripped it off, or lightning struck it and burned it off, it will be hard to pin responsibility on the landlord.

On the other hand, if the shingles were applied with three one-inch nails when five 1-1/2" nails is recommended practice, the tenant can probably successfully sue the landlord for water damage when a foreseeable kind of windstorm blows the roof off. The theory would be that the landlord negligently supervised the roofing job. It used to be that the tenant could not sue the roofer because the tenant and the roofer were not "in privity" (i.e., had not dealt with each other), but I believe this requirement (privity) has been eroded to the point where the tenant can now also sue the roofer.

So, the short answer to your question is that the landlord is not an insurer of the tenant's property, but may be liable for damage to it if the damage was the proximate result of the landlord's negligent breach of a duty of care owed to the tenant.

Torts lawyers know all about this kind of thing.