Residents of the Pavilion v. The Pavilion
73 U.Va 8 (2020)
Justice Peterson delivered the opinion of the Court.
This opinion is necessitated by complaints over the poor maintenance of The Pavilion (Pav), an apartment building for students situated conveniently near North Grounds. The complaint at hand relates to the overactivity of fire alarms in the building, which plaintiffs of this class action allege has negatively impacted not only their sleep, but also their willingness to rely on the fire alarms in question. As per usual, this Court has no jurisdiction over Darden students residing in Pav, nor does this Court desire jurisdiction over—nor any relation with—Darden students. The plaintiffs seek damages for lost sleep and breach of contract, as well as an injunction requiring Pav to provide adequate maintenance of the fire alarms.
It is the conclusion of this Court that not only did Pav not breach its duty to its residents by employing working fire alarms, but also that the fire alarms in question cannot be faulted for being overly sensitive.
Facts
During the month of September 2020, residents of Pav claim they experienced three erroneous fire alarms. One of the alarms in question is believed to have been set off by a dubious individual intentionally creating smoke through an unknown, albeit most likely unsurprising, method—this complaint can be wholly discredited as the alarm was functioning as intended. The cause of the other two alarms being triggered at inordinate times of the day and night has yet to be determined. Neither party has entered any evidence indicating why the alarms were triggered. The plaintiffs contend that, in the absence of a justifiable reason for the alarm, the harshness of the fire alarms on their soft, untested, bourgeois ears qualifies as a tort deserving of not only recognition, but compensation. Additionally, plaintiffs contend a breach of contract with Pav, hoping to recover damages from the breach. Finally, plaintiffs seek an injunction for maintenance of the alarms.
Analysis
The issue before us is, per usual in the Court of Petty Appeals, one of first impression. The Trial Court of Petty Claims, having no desire to even entertain the plaintiffs’ claims, declined to review the case and, in an unprecedented move, sent the issue directly to Appeals. Thus, this Court shall be reviewing the claims in full.
The plaintiffs’ case rests upon innumerable assumptions of privileges that the Court can only imagine are the result of receiving participation trophies and no shortage of parental affection as children. These are the hallmarks of the Gen-Z and Millennial experience and the clear cause of the insidious degradation of America’s future and the mental fortitude of its youth. Courts have a serious policy interest in promoting the application of the tough love these TikTok-ers and influencers never received in their childhood. Additionally, the legal side of the plaintiffs’ case is just as destitute; there can be no recovery under these circumstances.
The first of the Residents’ claims is for damages resulting from the overactivity of the fire alarms in question. The plaintiffs allege both a tort stemming from a breach of duty and a breach of contract to reasonably maintain the utilities within the apartment complex. Both of these contentions amount to one thing—pure malarkey. While Pav does share a special relationship with those who have a lease and, thus, has a duty to those individuals, there is still the question of whether there was a breach of that duty. And the answer to that question is conclusively to the negative. The fire alarms, while noisy, cannot possibly constitute the amount of physical damage required for a tort claim. Nor was the resulting emotional distress stemming from, as plaintiffs put it, “lack of sleep” anything greater than what plaintiffs subject themselves to intentionally each typical Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night.
The plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim fairs no better—there can be no breach when a company’s utilities are over-performing. Would plaintiffs also return a racehorse if it ran faster than reported? Or, perhaps, would the plaintiffs turn their noses down at a meal more delicious than promised? Overperformance on a contractual obligation cannot be the standard for breach now, nor has it ever been. The overperformance of the fire alarms can be interpreted to mean one and only one thing: enhanced safety for those living in Pav. In short, the plaintiffs should be grateful to live in such an accommodating and concerned apartment complex—an apartment complex this Court is sure other businesses will model themselves after.
We move to the plaintiffs’ third claim, requesting an injunction to force Pav to “fix” its fire alarms to the standards specified by the plaintiffs: Such an injunction cannot, based upon policy reasons, be allowed to move forward. To force a business to behave in such a manner would be to promote perverse incentives for all businesses. It would incentivize little to no reactivity in fire alarms for fear of an identical case arising. The human cost of such an incentive would be unimaginable if other apartments adopted this policy. Due to the lack of a sustainable claim in both the tort and contracts issues discussed earlier, as well as the policy reasons necessitating non-action on the part of the Court, this injunction would be an unconscionable measure which would surely be seen as one of the greatest housing tragedies in Charlottesville history.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court dismisses all of the plaintiff’s claims. Furthermore, the Court believes plaintiffs should grow up, toughen up, and buy some ear plugs if it’s really that bad. And, ultimately, if that doesn’t satisfy the plaintiffs’ sky-high standards, they might as well just move to Ivy.
It is so ordered.
---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu