Lengas v. Resnick
| Decision Date | 04 December 1934 |
| Citation | 175 A. 824 |
| Parties | LENGAS v. RESNICK et al. (two cases). |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Young, Judge.
Actions by Anastasia Lengas and by Vasilio Lengas against Samuel Resnick and another. Verdict was directed for defendants subject to exceptions after jury found, on special issues, that plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, and the case was transferred.
Judgments for defendants.
Two actions—one to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by Anastasia Lengas (hereinafter called the plaintiff) by reason of the defendants' negligence; the other brought by the plaintiff's husband for the loss resulting to him. The jury having found, on the submission of special issues, that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, the court directed a verdict for the defendants subject to exception.
The evidence tended to prove the following facts: The defendants were the owners of a three-story tenement house in Manchester, each tenement of which opened upon a small back piazza. These piazzas were connected by a stairway which gave access to an alley leading to Union street. The accident occurred on the night of September 7, 1951. The plaintiff had been calling on the family of George Grezotes, a tenant of the defendants. She was accustomed to call there and was familiar with the premises. There was an electric light on each piazza, and each light was controlled by a switch inside the tenement. When the plaintiff started to go home, Grezotes turned on his light, but he had no control over the lights on the other piazzas. The lower piazza was in darkness, and the plaintiff fell on the short flight of steps which led from that piazza to the alley. The electric wires and fixtures were installed by the defendants when the back entrance to the building was constructed. Each tenant turned his piazza light on and off as he saw fit and paid for the current used.
Further facts are stated in the opinion.
Hurley & Connor (A. J. Connor orally), of Manchester, for plaintiff.
O'Connor & Saidel (M. Saidel orally), of Manchester, for defendants.
It is the general rule that the owner of a tenement building is under no obligation to light the stairways retained in his control for the common use of his tenants unless he has expressly or impliedly agreed to do so or unless that duty is imposed by statute. Hawes v. Chase, 84 N. H. 170, 147 A. 748,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agosta v. Granite City Real Estate Co., 1783
...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.E.2d 372; Rietzel v. Cary, 66 R.I. 418,......
-
Tremblay v. Donnelly
...of agreement to do so and in the absence of 'special 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 whet......
-
Vezina v. Amoskeag Realty Co.
...was no duty imposed on the landlord to furnish better lighting. This was proper in accordance with the rule laid down in Lengas v. Resnick, 87 N.H. 161, 175 A. 824 and Tremblay v. Donnelly, 103 N.H. 498, 175 A.2d 391. The defendant's exceptions are Plaintiff excepted to the reduction by the......