Jackson v. KA-3 Associates, LLC:
Extending Oregon Landlord Habitability Obligations to Common Areas Under ORS 90.320(1)

Introduction

Citation: Jackson v. KA-3 Associates, LLC, 374 Or 1 (2025), Supreme Court of Oregon (en banc), decided 17 July 2025.

Terrial Jackson, a residential tenant, suffered serious injuries when a plastic light-fixture cover fell from the ceiling of a shared exterior hallway outside his apartment. He sued his landlord, KA-3 Associates, LLC, alleging breach of the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ORLTA), specifically ORS 90.320(1), which obligates landlords to keep a “dwelling unit” habitable.

The dispute centered on whether the statutory habitability duties apply exclusively inside the tenant’s “dwelling unit” or also encompass common areas—hallways, grounds, elevators and other spaces under the landlord’s control that tenants must use to access their homes. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals limited the duty to the interior of the unit and granted/affirmed summary judgment for the landlord. The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to resolve that statutory-construction question.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part, holding that ORS 90.320(1) extends a landlord’s habitability obligations to common areas adjacent to and necessary for access to the dwelling unit.
• Conditions in those areas can render the dwelling unit “unhabitable.” Therefore, summary judgment for the landlord on that ground was error.
• The case is remanded for the Court of Appeals to reach the landlord’s alternative argument (whether no reasonable juror could find a substantial lack of the enumerated attributes).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Humbert v. Sellars, 300 Or 113 (1985) – Recognized that outdoor patios at a unit’s entrance fall within “dwelling unit” for purposes of floor maintenance duties.
• Bellikka v. Green, 306 Or 630 (1988) – Treated a front-yard injury as covered by former ORS 90.320(1)(f) (then focused on cleanliness). Led to 1989 statutory amendment to add explicit safety language.
• Out-of-state warranty-of-habitability cases cited in legislative history:
  • Javins v. First Nat’l Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
  • Hinson v. Delis, 26 Cal App 3d 62 (1972)
  Both decisions treated landlord duties as extending to common areas.

Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Analysis
   The Court dissected ORS 90.320(1):
   • The opening sentence (“maintain the dwelling unit in a habitable condition”) must be read with the following list of attributes whose absence renders the unit unhabitable.
   • Several enumerated attributes (e.g., ORS 90.320(1)(f) “grounds … all areas under control of the landlord”; ORS 90.320(1)(i) elevators) logically lie outside the interior space.
   • The ordinary meaning of “dwelling unit” (ORS 90.100(14)) is clarified by the broader definition of “premises” (ORS 90.100(37)), demonstrating legislative contemplation of the unit as part of a larger setting.
2. Legislative History
   • 1973 enactment of ORLTA (SB 159) originally mirrored the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and explicitly required landlords to keep “all common areas” clean and safe.
   • In response to landlord concerns about vagueness, the legislature replaced the section with the current attribute-list formula (drawn from HB 2424) but intended the new language still to capture premises-wide duties.
   • Official committee explanations emphasized “repair and maintenance of the dwelling unit and the premises.”
   • 1989 amendment (SB 602) adding “safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses” to paragraph (f) was specifically framed to cover common grounds in multifamily complexes, reflecting a post-Bellikka policy choice.
3. Systematic Context
   • Limiting obligations to the interior would nullify the explicit references to grounds and elevators.
   • It would also contradict the tenant-protection objectives driving warranty-of-habitability doctrines nationwide.

Impact

The decision realigns Oregon law with the dominant national rule and legislative intent, carrying notable implications:

• Litigation: Tenants injured in hallways, stairwells, parking lots, laundry rooms, or elevators may bring ORLTA claims in addition to negligence.
• Landlord Risk Management: Property owners must include common-area inspection, maintenance, and repairs in habitability compliance programs; insurance carriers may adjust coverage conditions and premiums.
• Trial Practice: Summary-judgment motions premised on interior-only readings of ORS 90.320(1) will fail; courts will have to assess whether conditions in common areas cause the unit to “substantially lack” statutory attributes.
• Legislative Clarity: Reinforces that the attribute-list approach, though detailed, is not a loophole permitting neglect of hallways or grounds; future amendments (e.g., relating to climate resiliency, e-bike battery storage) may follow the same logic.
• Affordable-housing providers: Non-profit and public landlords must budget for premises-wide safety upgrades; however, the decision may spur clearer habitability-maintenance grants and subsidies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Habitability: A legal baseline of health, safety, and structural soundness that a rental must meet. Instead of listing all required features, ORS 90.320(1) defines what must not be missing in a substantial way (e.g., safe grounds, working electrical lighting).
• Dwelling Unit vs. Premises:
  • Dwelling Unit – The space the tenant lives in (apartment interior, attached patio).
  • Premises – The dwelling unit plus shared areas, structures, grounds, facilities.
• Summary Judgment: A procedural device allowing a court to dispose of claims when no genuine dispute of material fact exists. Here the lower courts granted it based on an erroneous legal interpretation.
• Substantially Lacks: A practical, evidence-based standard—conditions must be serious enough to compromise ordinary, reasonable use and safety, not merely cosmetic defects.

Conclusion

Jackson v. KA-3 Associates, LLC cements an important clarification: Oregon landlords’ statutory duty to maintain habitable conditions is premises-wide, including common areas that tenants must traverse to enjoy their homes. The Court’s careful textual and historical analysis reaffirms the ORLTA’s consumer-protection purpose and brings Oregon precedent in line with nationwide warranty-of-habitability jurisprudence. Practitioners, property owners, and policymakers must now account for this broader scope when litigating, drafting leases, or crafting housing regulations.