Sodekson v. Lynch

Citation298 Mass. 72,9 N.E.2d 372
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Decision Date30 June 1937
PartiesRUTH E. SODEKSON v. MAUDE A. LYNCH & another.

April 6, 1937.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., FIELD, DONAHUE LUMMUS, & QUA, JJ.

Landlord and Tenant, Common stairway, Lights. Municipal Corporations Officers and agents. Public Officer. Boston. Proof of a designation by an inspector under the building commissioner of a

"main stairway" in a tenement house in Boston, without proof of authority of the inspector to act for the commissioner in that matter did not establish a valid designation within St 1924, c. 136, nor prove that the owner was required under the statute to light that stairway.

TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated January 26, 1932. The action was tried before Morton, J. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $100. The defendants alleged exceptions.

M. B. Lynch, for the defendants, submitted a brief. No argument nor brief for the plaintiff.

LUMMUS, J. The plaintiff, a minor, lived with her father in a tenement on the third floor of a building in Boston owned by the defendant Maurice B. Lynch, who will be called the defendant. The building had three stories, and contained six tenements. The tenancy was at will, and began in November, 1930. In August, 1931, at about half past eight in the evening, when it was dusk but not dark, the plaintiff fell down an unlighted common stairway between the second floor and the street floor. There was no evidence of any defect in the stairs themselves. There was a hand rail, on which the plaintiff put her hand lightly, though she did not grasp it.

The principal exception is to the denial of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The evidence raises at least two questions of difficulty, which we need not discuss in view of the result to which we have come: (1) whether the plaintiff's father, against whom the defendant had recovered judgment for possession in summary process, had regained his status as a tenant at will, and (2) whether the evidence warranted a finding that darkness was the cause of the fall.

The decisive point is that no duty to light the stairs was shown. We start with the proposition that "a landlord is under no obligation to light the common halls and stairways under his control in tenement buildings occupied by his tenants, unless he has undertaken to do so by express or implied agreement, or is bound so to do by statutory provisions." Carey v Klein, 259 Mass. 90 , 92. McGowan v. Monahan, 199 Mass. 296 , 298. Whether there was evidence for the jury of such an implied agreement (Gallagher v. Murphy, 221 Mass. 363; Maran v. Peabody, 228 Mass. 432; Polansky v. Heller, 241 Mass. 484, 485; Steele v. Lifland, 265 Mass. 233) need not be considered, for the existence of such an agreement was not submitted to the jury and the verdict for the plaintiff cannot be taken to involve a finding that such an agreement existed. The case was submitted to the jury as one turning upon a statutory duty to light the stairway.

The building act applicable to Boston, St. 1907, c. 550, Section 42 (6), defines a public hall in a tenement house as "a hall, corridor, or passageway not within an apartment." St. 1924, c. 136, provides: "Public halls and main stairways in all tenement houses, now existing or hereafter erected, three stories or more in height and accommodating four or more families who are served by a common main stairway and hall shall be provided with proper and sufficient lights to be kept lighted during the night. The words `main stairway', as used in this section, shall mean the staircase so designated by the building commissioner." Unless a stairway is lawfully so designated, no duty to light it arises. Brodsky v. Fine, 263 Mass. 51 , 54, 55. Steele v. Lifland, 265 Mass. 233 , 235, 236. See also Garland v. Stetson, 292 Mass. 95, 102.

An inspector under the building commissioner testified that on June 12, 1930, he examined the premises and signed his name on a record card of the city, produced by him, under the words, "I designate the front stairs and hall as the common stairs and hall.

" Assuming that he acted by authority of the building commissioner, and that "common stairs" may be deemed the equivalent of "main stairway," the question remains whether there has been any lawful designation of the "staircase" in question as the "main stairway." There is nothing in the statute to show that an inspector is a deputy or assistant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Sodekson v. Lynch
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 30, 1937
    ...298 Mass. 729 N.E.2d 372SODEKSONv.LYNCH et al.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.June 30, Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Morton, Judge. Action of tort by Ruth E. Sodekson, p. p. a., against Annie M. Lynch and others, wherein there was a verdict for plaintiff i......
  • Richmond v. Warren Inst. for Sav.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 29, 1940
    ...inspector's report ‘showed nothing out of the ordinary.’ The ruling was correct and in accord with the recent decision in Sodekson v. Lynch, 298 Mass. 72, 9 N.E.2d 372. No error appears in excluding questions as to previous complaints by the female plaintiff to the ‘representative of the ow......
  • Heilbronner v. Scahill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 20, 1939
    ...obligation on an owner with respect to lighting stairways. Brodsky v. Fine, 263 Mass. 51, 54, 55, 160 N.E. 335;Sodekson v. Lynch, Mass., 9 N.E.2d 372;Steele v. Lifland, 265 Mass. 233, 163 N.E. 898. There is nothing in the record to show, and the plaintiff does not contend, that the building......
  • Sodekson v. Lynch
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 28, 1943
  • 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