Hawes v. Chase

Decision Date05 November 1929
Citation147 A. 748
PartiesHAWES v. CHASE.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Young, Judge.

Action on the case by Eugene G. Hawes, administrator, against Edward M. Chase, for negligence resulting in the death of plaintiff's intestate from a fall down a stairway in an unlighted hall of defendant's apartment building, wherein intestate was a tenant Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant's exception to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict was transferred to the Supreme Court. Judgment for defendant.

Doyle & Doyle and Paul J. Doyle, all of Manchester, for plaintiff.

Warren, Howe & Wilson and De Witt C. Howe, all of Manchester, for defendant.

ALLEN, J. If the decedent's fall might be found attributable to the darkness of the hallway, recovery depends upon some duty of the defendant to maintain lights. The furnishing of lights by the landlord for hallways used in common by the tenants of a building and retained in the landlord's control is a service which he is not required to render in the absence of agreement or statute. Capen v. Hall, 21 R. I. 364, 43 A. 847; Gleason v. Boehm, 58 N. J. Law, 475, 34 A. 886, 32 L. R. A. 645; Rhodes v. Fuller Land & Improvement Co., 92 N. J. Law, 569, 106 A. 400; Leech v. Atlantic Delicatessen Co., 104 N. J. Law, 381, 140 A. 423; Pitts v. Kelly, 234 Ill. App. 403; McKinley v. Niederst, 118 Ohio St. 334, 160 N. E. 850; Hilsenbeck v. Guhrig, 131 N. Y. 674, 30 N. E. 580; Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 N. Y. 413, 96 N. E. 733; Blaufarb v. Drooker, 251 Mass. 201, 146 N. E. 242, 39 A. L. R. 291; Carey v. Klein, 259 Mass. 90, 155 N. E. 868; Polansky v. Heller, 241 Mass. 484, 135 N. E. 572.

And this is the rule, although the hallways may not be safely used when unlighted, at least if the need of lighting is not due to a faulty plan or defective method of construction. If the rule has this possible qualification, the record shows that the only ground of negligence raised at the trial was the failure to maintain lights, and, under the rule that a verdict cannot be sustained upon grounds of negligence available but not presented at the trial (Bjork v. Company, 79 N. H. 402, 407, 111 A. 284, 533; Gage v. Railroad, 77 N. H. 289, 296, 90 A. 855, L. R. A. 1915A, 363), the plaintiff's contention now made that the plan of construction was faulty may not be considered.

The case of English v. Amidon, 72 N. H. 301, 56 A. 548, has no bearing. A master's duty to his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Lyons v. Lich
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 1934
    ... ... Lifland, 265 Mass. 233, 163 N.E. 898; ... Gallagher v. Murphy, 221 Mass. 363, 108 N.E. 1081, ... Ann. Cas. 1917E, 594; Hawes v. Chase, 84 N.H. 170, ... 147 A. 748; Lunde v. Northwestern Mut. Sav. & Loan ... Ass'n, 59 N.D. 575, 231 N.W. 609; [145 Or. 612] ... ...
  • Agosta v. Granite City Real Estate Co., 1783
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 1 Mayo 1951
    ...to light common hallways and stairways. 52 C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 417, p. 33; 32 Am.Jur., p. 576; 25 A.L.R. 1312; Hawes v. Chase, 84 N.H. 170, 147 A. 748; Lengas v. Resnick, 87 N.H. 161, 175 A. 824; Carey v. Klein, 259 Mass. 90, 92, 155 N.E. 868; Sodekson v. Lynch, 298 Mass. 72, 9 N......
  • Tremblay v. Donnelly
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 30 Noviembre 1961
    ...dangers * * * because of defective or unusual construction.' Lengas v. Resnick, 87 N.H. 161, 162, 175 A. 824. See also, Hawes v. Chase, 84 N.H. 170, 147 A. 748. In reliance upon this principle the defendants objected to inquiry as to whether there were 'any lights on the porch,' and whether......
  • Thompson v. Franckus
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 12 Agosto 1954
    ...This rule has been adopted in part, at least, as shown by cases cited under 25 A.L.R.2d 512, § 5. In particular we refer to Hawes v. Chase, 84 N.H. 170, 147 A. 748: '* * * nothing a possible qualification of the rule that a landlord is under no duty to maintain lights in common passageways,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT