In Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185, 1188, 899 P.2d 905, the Supreme Court overruled Becker and held: "A tenant injured by a defect in the premises . . . may bring a negligence action if the landlord breached its duty to exercise reasonable care. But a tenant cannot reasonably expect that the landlord will have eliminated defects in a rented dwelling of which the landlord was unaware and which would not have been disclosed by a reasonable inspection. The implied warranty of habitability, therefore, does not support an action for strict liability." ( Id., at p. 1206.) Respondents did not manufacture, refurbish, or sell the stove and its component parts. Because they were not retailers, they could not be sued for products liability. ( Id., at pp. 1188-1189.) "'Landlords cannot redesign the products or switch manufacturers; they can only repair the defects they know about.'" ( Id., at p. 1202.)