Andrews v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 16 October 1906
• Parties: ANDREWS v. WILLIAMSON (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

193 Mass. 92
78 N.E. 737

ANDREWS
v.
WILLIAMSON (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Oct. 16, 1906.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Middlesex County.

Actions by Margaret and Russell E. Andrews against Helen Williamson for personal injuries to and loss of services of the female plaintiff, who was a tenant of premises hired of defendant. Plaintiff fell, owing to a defect in a flight of steps appurtenant to the rented premises and used in common by various tenants. There was a verdict for plaintiff in each case, and defendant brings exceptions. Overruled.

[78 N.E. 738]

Stover & Sweetser and Geo. A. & Nelson [193 Mass. 93]P. Brown, for plaintiff.

Chas. A. Noyes and J. Ralph Wellman, for defendant.

HAMMOND, J.

These two actions were tried together. At the trial it was admitted that the defendant was the owner of the premises where the accident occurred, and that at the time of the accident the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the defendant and the plaintiff Russell E. Andrews. The evidence was undisputed that the plaintiffs began to occupy the premises in February, 1902, and had continued such occupation up to the time of the accident which occurred in June, 1903; that the building ‘was a double tenement house with an upper and a lower flat,’ the plaintiffs occupying the lower flat and one Davis occupying the upper flat; that there was a front entrance to the house and a side entrance; that at the side entrance there was a flight of five steps used in common by both tenants; and that these steps were out of doors, being the means of entrance to the side door. The plaintiff, Margaret, the wife of the plaintiff Russell, was injured by the breaking of one of these steps as she was passing over it.

At the trial it seems to have been assumed that the steps were not leased to either tenant, but were retained in the control of the defendant, and the arguments before us have proceeded upon the same assumption. The question therefore in substance may be stated thus: What is the nature of the duty owed by a landlord to a tenant as to the care and repair of a stairway over which the tenants have only a right of way in common, and which is kept within the control of the landlord?

[193 Mass. 94]In Quinn v. Perham 151 Mass. 162, 163, 23 N. E. 735, the law on this subject is thus stated by C. Allen, J.: ‘The general rule, that a landlord does not by implication warrant the fitness for use of a demised tenement, is not applicable to a...