Gladden v. Walker & Dunlop, 9333.

• Decision Date: 23 April 1948
• Docket Number: No. 9333.,9333.
• Citation: 168 F.2d 321,83 US App. DC 224
• Parties: GLADDEN et al. v. WALKER & DUNLOP, Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

83 US App. DC 224, 168 F.2d 321 (1948)

GLADDEN et al. v.WALKER & DUNLOP, Inc.

No. 9333.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Decided April 23, 1948.

Mr. Arthur L. Willcher, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. W. E. Cumberland, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, CLARK and WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justices.

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

Appellants Gladden, husband and wife, sued appellee for an injury to the wife, alleged to have been caused by an electric shock, in an apartment rented by the appellants from the appellee.The Municipal Court of Appeals set aside a judgment of the Municipal Court in appellants' favor and ordered a new trial.For the sake of brevity we state our view of the applicable law without restating the views of those courts, with neither of which we entirely agree.

Electricity was wired into the apartment house through a master switch and then to the various apartments through separate meters.Each tenant paid for the current he used.Late in 1943appellants had trouble with the electricity in their apartment and complained to appellee.Appellee sent an electrician who did some work on the switch in the bathroom.Trouble continued.Mrs. Gladden testified that on May 9, 1944, she told appellee's agent that "the light switches were bad and especially in the bathroom and sometimes the lights would not come on, and they would flick and flick and sparks flew terribly."Appellee denies that this complaint was made.In any case nothing was done.On May 12, in answering the telephone, Mrs. Gladden leaned against an electric switch in the hall of the apartment, fell and was injured.

It is familiar law that a landlord who keeps control over parts of an apartment house must use reasonable care for their safety.We have applied this principle to the lighting of a common entrance stairway.¹With regard to plumbing² and heating systems, the principle extends to operative fixtures in the apartments leased to tenants and operation through them.³We think the principle is equally broad with regard to the electrical system.Plumbing, heating, and electrical fixtures are not isolated either in use or maintenance.They must be maintained and used, if at all, in conjunction with the systems of which they are parts.Accordingly the tenant who uses them is usually not expected to maintain them, but only to notify the landlord when they appear to be out of order.Since appellee sent an electrician in response to appellants' original complaint, the usual expectation obviously existed here.We think it immaterial whether the injury to appellant appears to have been caused by defects in operative fixtures or in other parts of the electric system.The law should follow custom and convenience in classifying such fixtures among the things that the landlord controls.

The landlord is not an...