Is a landlord liable to a tenant for injuries sustained by the tenant as a result of the landlord's failure to conduct a proper inspection of the rental home?

"A landlord is not liable for injuries to a tenant caused by a condition on the premises which arises after the tenant has taken possession. [Citations.] However, the rule . . . is different with respect to a condition which exists at the time the property is leased to the tenant. [Citations.] . . . [A] `landlord at time of letting may be expected to inspect an apartment to determine whether it is safe' and will be subject to liability for `those matters which would have been disclosed by a reasonable inspection.' [Citations.]" (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1605-1606, fn. omitted.) "The implied warranty of habitability . . . gives a tenant a reasonable expectation that the landlord has inspected the rental dwelling and corrected any defects disclosed by that inspection that would render the dwelling uninhabitable. The tenant further reasonably can expect that the landlord will maintain the property in a habitable condition by repairing promptly any conditions, of which the landlord has actual or constructive notice, that arise during the tenancy and render the dwelling uninhabitable." (Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185, 1205-1206, fn. omitted.) "But a tenant cannot reasonably expect that the landlord will have eliminated defects in a rented dwelling of which the landlord was unaware and which would not have been disclosed by a reasonable inspection." (Id. at p. 1206.) "`[A landlord's] duty is not to insure the safety of tenants but only to exercise reasonable care.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1198.)

Here, as the owner of the property, the limited partnership owed plaintiff a nondelegable duty to put and maintain its property in reasonably safe condition and is responsible for its contractor's failure to do so. (Srithong v. Total Investment Co., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 726.) The issue is whether plaintiff presented any evidence of a breach of that duty by the corporation, as the owner's agent. We conclude she did not.

Plaintiff makes the conclusory assertion that defendants "were aware, or should have been aware of the problem in the laundry door hinge as they impliedly warranted that the apartment was safe for habitability when they delivered the . . . residence to [her]." She fails to show she presented any evidence in her case-in-chief that the door was in an unsafe condition at the time she took possession of the property, that defendants failed to perform an inspection of the property before turning it over to her, or that a reasonable inspection would have revealed the condition of the door. (See Brantley v. Pisaro, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1605.)