Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

and presented evidence that Pham had been informed that the lines needed to be

replaced. The Tenants' testimony about the persistence of rodents as well as Bradrick's

testimony and letter, all supported a likelihood that rodents were present. Bradrick also

testified about the poor condition and installation of the stairs and handrails, back door,

sewer pipe, door to the crawl space, bathroom sink, and dangerous electrical violations.

We find that the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding of breach of the

warranty of habitability.

Pham argues the Tenants failed to provide him with notice and opportunity to

cure any defects as required by RCW 59.18.070. Br. of Appellant at 11. The argument

is without merit. The record shows that Pham had ample notice of the defects and an

opportunity to cure them. In addition to the complaints from the Tenants, Pham received
at least three letters from Bradrick advising him of the defects. Pham presented no

evidence that, to the extent he acted in response to these complaints, the defects were

ever cured.

Pham argues that the trial court applied the wrong standard when it found him in
breach of the implied warranty of habitability. He contends the trial court erroneously
required him to take "'all reasonable measures'" to insure that the unit was rodent-free
because the Tenants had a small child. Br. of Appellant at 12-13. In support of this

argument Pham points to the court's oral ruling, in which, citing Landis, it stated "'[tjhere

10
             
No. 70956-9-1/11

is no doubt that a rodent infestation can create an actual or potential safety hazard'" and