O'Callaghan v. Waller & Beckwith Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Illinois · 1959 · Contracts

ContractsExculpatory clausesResidential leasesPublic policyfreedom of contractexculpatory clauseleaseresidential property

Facts

Mrs. Ella O'Callaghan was a tenant in the defendant's apartment building and was injured when she fell while crossing the paved courtyard from the garage to her apartment. She sued, alleging that defective pavement in the courtyard caused her injuries. Before trial, she died and her administratrix was substituted as plaintiff. The lease she had signed contained a clause purporting to relieve the lessor and its agents from liability to the lessee for personal injuries or property damage caused by any act or neglect of the lessor or its agents.

Issue

Is an exculpatory clause in a residential lease, which relieves the landlord from liability for personal injuries caused by the landlord's own negligence, invalid as contrary to public policy? If not, does such a clause bar the tenant's recovery here?

Rule

Contracts by which a party seeks to relieve itself from the consequences of its own negligence are generally enforced unless enforcement would be against the settled public policy of the State or there is something in the social relationship of the parties militating against upholding the agreement. In the landlord-tenant relationship, including residential leases, such exculpatory clauses are not invalid on that basis absent legislative prohibition or some recognized public-policy ground.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Chicago, Lena Ortiz rented an apartment from Lakeview Terrace Homes, a fictional landlord. Her lease stated that the landlord and its employees would not be liable to Lena for personal injuries caused by any act or neglect of the landlord or its employees. After Lena was injured in a hallway fall allegedly caused by negligent maintenance, she sued the landlord for negligence.

Assuming the clause clearly covers Lena's claim, how should a court applying the majority rule treat the clause?

Explanation. The majority held that contracts relieving a party from the consequences of its own negligence are generally enforceable unless enforcement would violate the settled public policy of the State or the social relationship of the parties militates against enforcement. It specifically treated the residential landlord-tenant relationship as a matter of private concern rather than a category automatically barred on public-policy grounds. So if the clause clearly applies, it is enforceable.