Barron v. Liedloff
| Decision Date | 21 July 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,399 - (154) |
| Citation | 104 N.W. 289,95 Minn. 474 |
| Parties | LUCRETIA W. BARRON v. A. G. LIEDLOFF and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Blue Earth county by plaintiff, a subtenant, to recover from defendants, as landlords, $2,100 for personal injuries occasioned by the neglect of defendants to repair and keep in repair the floor of a porch appurtenant to the leased premises, as covenanted in the original lease. The case was tried before Lorin Cray, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $200. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendants appealed. Affirmed.
Negligence of Landlord.
Action to recover for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendants in making and failing to make repairs upon premises occupied by her, which they agreed to make. Held:
1. Where a landlord agrees to repair and keep in repair the leased premises, his right to enter and have possession of the premises for that purpose is necessarily implied, and his duties and liabilities are in some respects similar to those of an owner and occupant. And if his negligence in making or failing to make the repairs results in an unsafe condition of the premises, he is liable for injuries caused thereby to persons lawfully upon the premises, who are not guilty of contributory negligence on their part.
2. The evidence in this case sustains the verdict to the effect that the defendants were guilty of such negligence, and that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence.
W. A Funk, for appellants.
Plymat & Plymat, for respondent.
The defendants are the owners of a two-story brick store and living rooms on Front street, in the city of Mankato, and on February 24, 1904, they gave a written lease thereof to William R. Crandall for the term of one year, to commence March 15 thereafter. In and by the lease the defendants agreed to put the premises in first-class condition, and to care for ordinary repairs. The lease contained no limitations on the right of the lessee to sublet the premises, or any part of them. He sublet to the plaintiff two of the living rooms in the second story of the building, with the right to use an adjoining porch, which was a part of the building. The plaintiff, on September 22, 1904, and while she was occupying the rooms as such sublessee, was injured by the breaking of a board in the floor of the porch upon which she stepped, whereby she was thrown down. It is claimed that the floor was decayed, and in a dangerous condition, by reason of the negligence of the defendants in failing to put it in a safe condition of repair and by the negligent manner in which repairs undertaken by them were made. This action was brought to recover damages for the personal injuries so sustained by the plaintiff. She obtained a verdict for $200, and the defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
The important contention of the defendants is that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff cannot recover in this case for the reasons following, namely:
1. The measure of damages for a breach of a covenant by the lessor to keep the leased premises in repair is the difference between the agreed rent and the rental value of the premises without the repairs, and that damages for personal injuries are too remote. It may be conceded that this is the correct measure of damages in an action on the contract, but the rule has no application to an action in tort to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the negligence of the lessor in making or failing to make repairs which he agreed to make by his lease. Such alleged negligence was the basis of recovery submitted by the trial court to the jury in this case. Where there is no agreement by a landlord to do so, he is under no legal obligation to make repairs upon the leased premises; nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial