Bell v. Siegel

• Decision Date: 05 July 1922
• Citation: 242 Mass. 380,136 N.E. 109
• Parties: BELL v. SIEGEL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

242 Mass. 380

136 N.E. 109

BELL

v.SIEGEL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

July 5, 1922.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Henry A. King, Judge.

Action by Joseph Bell against Israel Siegel for personal injuries caused by a fall on snow and ice on the front steps of defendant's two-apartment house, one apartment in which was rented to plaintiff. Reported by the superior court, after directed verdict for defendant, on pleadings and evidence and on agreement that, if the order directing the verdict was correct, judgment should be entered for defendant, and otherwise entered for plaintiff for $400. Judgment for defendant on the verdict.

Fred L. Norton and Vernon Mason, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

Leon R. Eyges, of Boston, for defendant.

JENNEY, J.

The plaintiff contends that he is entitled to recover for an injury sustained by him on January 9, 1919, as the result of a fall upon snow and ice upon the front steps of a two-story house, a part of which he occupied as a tenant at will of the defendant. No question of notice of the accident is involved. The tenancy began in June, 1918.

The plaintiff and his family lived upstairs and the defendant resided on the ground floor. There were two front doors, both opening upon a piazza from which four or five steps led to the street. The piazza and steps were used in common.

The other facts were for the most part in controversy, but considering the evidence in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff they could have been found to be as follows: A few days before the accident the plaintiff talked with the defendant about ice, and referring to the steps said, ‘It is very dangerous; somebody will be hurt;’ and the latter replied, ‘I will try to clean [the steps] up.’ The ice then extended from top to bottom of the steps and looked very slippery. The defendant had removed the ice some few times prior to the accident, both before and after this conversation, but not immediately before the plaintiff received his injury. The ice was rough and uneven looking, as if it had been walked upon. Another witness testified that the defendant, when told that he should clean off the ice, said, ‘I will take care of it.’

The judge directed a verdict for the defendant and the case is here upon his report. No question of pleadings has been considered. It is not urged that the evidence did not warrant a finding that the plaintiff failed to exercise due care; and it is assumed that the ice and snow rendered the steps dangerous for use and that the defendant knew of their condition.

The relation of landlord and tenant imposed on the defendant no duty to remove from the steps ice naturally accumulating thereon. Woods v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 134 Mass. 357, 45 Am. Rep. 344.

There was no evidence that the contract of letting bound the defendant to keep the premises safe for use or that any such contractual relation was thereafter created. Miles v. Janvrin, 196 Mass. 431, 82 N. E. 708,13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 378, 124 Am. St. Rep. 575;Id., 200 Mass. 514, 86 N. E. 785.

If a danger existed and continued, it was because of mere inaction. It did not appear that the condition of the ice was caused by any negligence or wrongful act of the defendant. The landlord did not do work gratuitously undertaken in a negligent manner. The danger was not caused by any misrepresentation on his part. There was no...