Doctor Failed to Prove She'd Been Constructively Evicted by Carpet's Odor

After water leaked into a doctor's office and damaged the carpet, the owner replaced the carpet. Soon after, the doctor complained that the new carpet's odor was making her and her patients sick. But the owner refused to replace the carpet again. So the doctor moved out of the space and sued the owner, claiming that because of the carpet's odor, she'd been “constructively evicted—that is, the owner had acted in a manner that was tantamount to an eviction.

A Rhode Island appeals court ruled that the doctor had failed to prove she'd been constructively evicted because of the carpet's odor. The court said that the doctor had failed to prove that the carpet's odor had made her and her patients sick. Also, the doctor had failed to prove that the carpet's odor had deprived her of the “use and enjoyment” of the space, which is necessary to prove constructive eviction, the court added [Mills v. Nahabedian].