Just months after reinforcing cure notice requirements in KKMH Properties, LLC v. Shire, the Oregon Supreme Court issued another unanimous decision strengthening tenant protections in Oregon. In Jackson v. KA-3 Associates, LLC, 374 Or 1 (2025), the court held that landlords’ habitability obligations extend beyond the four walls of a tenant’s apartment to include common areas that tenants use to access their units.
In Jackson, the tenant was injured when a plastic light fixture cover fell from the ceiling in a shared exterior hallway outside his apartment, causing serious injuries including herniated cervical discs requiring surgery. The question for the Supreme Court: do landlords’ habitability obligations under ORS 90.320(1) apply only within the tenant’s apartment, or do they extend to common areas?
Answer: Habitability obligations extend to common areas adjacent to a tenant’s apartment that the tenant uses to access their unit. The court emphasized that ORS 90.320(1) explicitly refers to areas outside dwelling units, including “buildings, grounds and appurtenances,” “all areas under control of the landlord,” including “elevators.” If habitability obligations were limited to dwelling unit interiors, the legislature wouldn’t have included these provisions.
Quick hits for tenant advocates
Consider few potential practical applications if you’re doing injury claims on the tenant side.
- Expand your habitability claims. No need to limit ORS 90.320(1) arguments to conditions inside the apartment. Perhaps focus on the “adjacent and used for access” wording the Supreme Court emphasized. Safe housing means safe access to housing.
- Dual track your strategy (maybe you’re already doing this). In slip-and-fall or injury cases involving common areas, consider bringing both negligence claims and ORLTA habitability violations. The habitability claim may have different damages, notice requirements, and statutory attorneys’ fees. This may make smaller cases more economically viable. What’s more, ORLTA damages include rent reduction remedies and withholding rights that negligence claims don’t provide, potentially increasing recovery while giving clients immediate financial relief during the case.
- Class action potential? Common area defects may affect multiple tenants, creating class action potential. ORLTA’s fee-shifting provision may be valuable in larger-scale litigation where individual damages might not justify the costs under a negligence-only theory. This, of course, is a double-edged sword—it’s a prevailing party fee provision.
I wrote before about the tenant-protective series of cases the Supreme Court has issued since 2020. Jackson is now the fifth major decision protecting tenants’ rights from the Oregon Supreme Court in five years:
- Eddy v. Anderson (2020): Good faith requirements under ORLTA
- C.O. Homes v. Cleveland (2020): Limits on prejudicial amendments to eviction complaints
- Hickey v. Scott (2022): Precise notice requirements for nonpayment terminations
- KKMH Properties v. Shire (2025): Mandatory cure notice information regardless of landlord’s assessment
- Jackson v. KA-3 Associates (2025): Habitability obligations extend to common areas
These decisions come as Oregon’s eviction crisis persists, with cases reaching their highest levels since at least 2011 in 2023. The Supreme Court continues to interpret landlord-tenant law in ways that provide meaningful protections for vulnerable tenants facing displacement, consistently recognizing specific statutory guarantees under the ORLTA and the inherent imbalance in landlord-tenant relationships.
Comments for this post are closed.