Perkel v. Grayson

Decision Date06 February 1935
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesPERKEL v. GRAYSON.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; John Rufus Booth Judge.

Action by Adele Perkel against Arthur M. Grayson to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, which was tried to the court. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

No error.

Ralph O. Wells and William S. Locke, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Jacob Schwolsky, of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, BANKS, AVERY, and JENNINGS JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

At about 6 o'clock on an evening in December the plaintiff went to a two-family house owned by the defendant for the purpose of getting her small daughter, who was visiting the family which occupied the first floor. The plaintiff rang the front doorbell, and, getting no response, went to the back entrance. Opening the door, she entered. The entranceway was unlighted and quite dark. She stepped to the right upon the landing inside the door to allow it to close, and, taking a step or two forward, fell down an unguarded flight of cellar stairs. Both apartments in the house were rented at the time and the doorway and landing afforded a common entrance to both apartments. Judgment having been rendered for the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.

The defendant vigorously contends that there was no duty upon the defendant as owner of the premises to keep the entranceway in a reasonably safe condition. The finding is silent as to the terms of the leasing of the apartment, nor are we asked to make any additions to it which would define those terms. The court has found that the entranceway was not a part of the premises leased to either tenant, and, while this finding is attacked, it is a reasonable inference from the evidence appearing in the record. Nor is there anything to suggest a lease of any portion of the premises to the two tenants in common. From the finding, with a few additions which the defendant is entitled to have made, it appears that he did not inspect the premises to determine their condition, and only had repairs made to them when complaint was made by the tenants or, infrequently, when an employee of his called his attention to something which needed attention. The tenants cleaned the stairways and entrance landing, the tenant of the lower floor caring for the stairs from the landing level with his apartment to the landing at the ground level, which was the one from which the plaintiff fell. The tenants also took care of the premises about the house, cutting the lawn, shoveling the walks, and the like. In brief, except as regards the making of repairs as above stated, the defendant left the care of the premises entirely to the tenants. There was an electric light located on the landing on the level with the first floor apartment, which was used only by the tenant of that apartment, in connection with a refrigerator located on the landing; the tenant had notified the defendant some weeks before the plaintiff's fall that this light was not functioning; and he repaired it after the accident.

When a person is invited to enter upon the premises of another, he naturally assumes that they are in a reasonably safe condition for his use, and he enters them in the faith that this is so. This basically just reliance on his part upon the safe condition of the premises necessarily implies a duty upon the landowner or some one else acting in his stead to use reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. If the landowner so deals with the premises as to place them within the sole possession and control of another, so that the former no longer has any right of entry, as where he leases them without express or implied reservation of such a right, he cannot be held to a performance of a duty of inspection and repair, which he could not perform without such entry. Chambers v. Lowe, 117 Conn. 624, 169 A. 912. But if, though he has leased the premises, he has covenanted to make-certain repairs, and so impliedly would have a right of entry in order to make them, he may be liable to one injured through his failure to do so. Dean v. Hershowitz, 119 Conn. 398, 177 A. 262. If the landowner leases a part of the premises, but retains control over the rest, he may be liable to one injured by the defective condition in that portion of them retained by him; and this is the basis of the rule that the owner of an apartment house is under a duty to use reasonable care to keep the common approaches, halls, and stairways in such a building in a reasonably safe condition. Aprile v. Colonial Trust Co., 118 Conn. 573, 579, 173 A. 237. The foundation of the duty which the owner owes is the fact that he has a right of entry and control of the premises, Beaulac v. Robie and Slayton, 92 Vt. 27, 32, 102 A. 88; 2 Underhill, Landlord & Tenant, p. 800; while, on the other hand, no tenant can claim exclusive control of them, 92 Am.St.Rep. 521, note.

Indeed, the imposition of the duty upon the landlord in such a case is necessary, if a person visiting the premises is to receive the protection to which he is entitled. Measures needed to secure such protection may involve changes in, or additions to, the premises, and, if the making of these were left to the determination of the tenants of a building, they might not be able to agree as to the method which should be used. As illustrating this, in the case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Shegda v. Hartford-conn. Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1944
    ...certainly would not accord well with the ordinary incidents of the estate which the tenant acquires under his lease. Perkel v. Grayson, 119 Conn. 465, 468, 177 A. 534; Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515, 518, 7 A.2d 215, 123 A.L.R. 863. We have recently held that the making of repairs ......
  • Hayes v. New Britain Gas Light Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1936
    ...of any special precaution on entering the pantry. Whether she exercised reasonable care was a question for the jury. Perkel v. Grayson, 119 Conn. 465, 472, 177 A. 534; Kaplan v. Grand Department Stores, Inc., 118 Conn. 714, 715, 174 A. 76; Pomerene Co. v. White, supra, 70 Neb. 171, at page ......
  • Hayes v. New Britain Gas Light Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1936
    ...of any special precaution on entering the pantry. Whether she exercised reasonable care was a question for the jury. Perkel v. Grayson, 119 Conn. 465, 472, 177 A. 534; Kaplan v. Grand Department Stores, Inc., 118 714, 715, 174 A. 76; Pomerene Co. v. White, supra, 70 Neb. 171, at page 174, 9......
  • State v. LoSacco
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • August 25, 1987
    ...because he has a right of entry and control of those areas, while no tenant can claim exclusive control of them. Perkel v. Grayson, 119 Conn. 465, 469-70, 177 A. 534 (1935); Fonseca v. Lavado, 28 Conn.Sup. 509, 511, 268 A.2d 415 (1970), cited with approval in State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCart......
  • 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