Bergman v. Jacob
| Decision Date | 08 June 1939 |
| Citation | 125 Conn. 486,7 A.2d 219 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BERGMAN v. JACOB et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Arthur F. Ellis Judge.
Action by Henry W. Bergman against Fred Jacob and another to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, landlord and tenant, and the maintenance by them of a nuisance. The verdict for the plaintiff was set aside as to the named defendant, the landlord, and the plaintiff appeals.
No error.
Clarence A. Hadden, William L. Hadden, and Daniel Pouzzner all of New Haven, for appellant.
John E. McNerney and Daniel L. O'Neill, both of New Haven, for appellee jacob.
Argued Before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries, claimed to have been received in consequence of falling down a cellar stairway connected with a restaurant operated by Emil Laufer, as tenant, on premises owned by Fred Jacob, as landlord. The action was brought against both the landlord and the tenant, and a verdict, returned by the jury in favor of the plaintiff as against both defendants, was set aside by the court as against the landlord, Jacob. The plaintiff has appealed. The question involved is whether the court erred in setting aside the verdict against the landlord.
Taking the view of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff the jury might reasonably have found these facts: The promises were leased by Jacob to Laufer with knowledge that the tenant was to operate a restaurant thereon. Subsequently the tenant obtained a permit to dispense liquors in connection with the restaurant and was required by the liquor control commission to install toilet facilities for men separate from those used by the other sex. The landlord installed such facilities in a hallway or small room adjoining the restaurant. A doorway opened from the restaurant into the hallway. On the right-hand within was a doorway opening into the hallway and leading to a cellar. This door was provided with a bolt. On the left was a door leading to the toilet. In the hall opposite the entrance door was a window with shutters which could be opened or closed and while there was no direct evidence that when open the hallway would be lighted by the window, that is the only reasonable inference from the testimony as a whole. On the ceiling above the toilet was a powerful electric light bulb. When this was lighted, light from it would shine into the hallway. The door to the toilet did not reach either to the top or bottom of the door frame. Although the entrance door into the hallway opened against the door to the toilet, there can be no question that when the hallway was lighted the position of the toilet would have been apparent.
On January 26, 1936, at about noon the plaintiff had lunch at the restaurant and after he had eaten at the counter he inquired for the toilet. The defendant Laufer said, ‘ Go into your right and pull the string.’ The plaintiff entered the hall room which was dark and while feeling for the string his hand touched the panel of the cellar door. He opened this door, stepped forward, fell down the cellar stairs, and was injured. The plaintiff claimed the right to recover against the landlord on the ground of negligence and also that the condition of the premises constituted nuisance. There was no evidence Before the jury that the landlord maintained or exercised any control over the operation or management of the premises. The only acts of negligence which could be claimed from the evidence were the act of the tenant Laufer in directing the plaintiff into the room with the shutters closed upon the window so as to exclude light therefrom, and with the electric light turned off and the cellar door unbolted. Inasmuch as the control of the premises was with the tenant the landlord could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial