Blaufarb v. Drooker

• Decision Date: 30 January 1925
• Citation: 146 N.E. 242,251 Mass. 201
• Parties: BLAUFARB v. DROOKER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

251 Mass. 201

146 N.E. 242

BLAUFARB

v.DROOKER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 30, 1925.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; W. H. Whiting, Judge.

Action of tort by Helen Blaufarb against Nathan L. Drooker to recover for personal injuries, sustained when lawfully on defendant's premises. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.W. B. Keenan, of Boston (S. L. Solomont, of Roxbury, on the brief), for plaintiff.

J. T. Connolly, of Boston, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

It was undisputed that the defendant was the owner of the premises and retained possession and control of the passageway where the plaintiff was injured while visiting by invitation one Mrs. Hoffman, a tenant of the defendant, whose apartment was on the first floor of the building. The plaintiff, whose due care is not in question, entered it at 5 o'clock in the afternoon of a December day. On her evidence, which was the only testimony at the trial, it could be found that there was a long entry leading from Mrs. Hoffman's kitchen to an inner door, which swung outward upon a short hallway without windows, where there were four or five steps about four feet wide leading to another door opening upon a sidewalk. The small hallway between the doors was so dark that she could not see her way as she came out of the apartment, and the light in the long hallway did not reach the flight of steps where the accident happened. The first door to which she came, leading to the short flight of steps, was closed, as well as the street door. Upon coming to the first door, she tried to open it with her right hand, and, with her left hand holding the door, started to walk with one foot, and then the other foot. ‘It was slippery and dark and she could not see,’ and ‘fell head first, striking her head and back.’ There was no light ‘and she did not know of any other way to get out of the premises other than through the front door.’

The evidence tended to support the declaration, which alleged ‘that on the first floor of the said premises is a narrow entry or passageway, leading to a certain stairway, which stairway descends to door of said building, in the front; that the entry, or passageway, and stairway is provided by the defendant for the use of the tenants, their guests and visitors, to be used by them as incident to the occupation of said premises; that said defendant has the exclusive control of the said entry or passageway and stairway, and is bound to maintain and keep same in good condition; that said entry or passageway and stairway were improperly lighted, narrow, abrupt and dangerous; that the said defendant failed and unreasonably neglected to render the same safe for the use of the said tenants, their guests and visitors. * * *’ The jury could find that the little hall which the plaintiff described was unlighted, and the question whether, if it had been lighted, the accident would have happened, also was one of fact.

[1][2] But the...