Bolieau v. Traiser
Decision Date | 20 September 1925 |
Citation | 148 N.E. 809,253 Mass. 346 |
Parties | BOLIEAU v. TRAISER. SAME v. PRATT. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.
Separate actions of tort by Elizabeth Bolieau against Eva A. Traiser and against Wellington H. Pratt to recover for personal injuries. Verdicts for plaintiff in each case, and cases reported. Judgment for defendant.
J. F. Daly, of Boston, for plaintiff.
W. R. Bigelow, of Boston, for defendants.
The plaintiff claims that she was injured owing to the defective condition of the floor of a closet opening from one of two rooms which she was occupying as tenant under an oral lease. She brings two actions. In one, as amended, she alleges that she was a tenant of defendant Traiser and was injured by a defect in the premises existing at the time of the letting which was not discovered by her before her injury but which was known or should have been known to the defendant, her servants or agents; and no notice thereof given to the plaintiff. In the other, against Pratt, she alleges that she was tenant of Pratt, and makes the same allegations of injury, defect, lack of knowledge on her part, and knowledge and failure to notify on the part of the defendant.
The second action was brought nearly two years after the first, which, originally, was against both these defendants; but they were tried together before a jury in the superior court which returned verdicts for the plaintiff in the same amount in each case. They are before us upon a report of the trial judge which sets out all the material evidence, and a stipulation that:
‘If either or both cases were properly submitted to the jury the verdict or verdicts shall stand; if either or both cases were improperly submitted to the jury judgment shall be entered for one or both defendants as the cases may require.’
The undisputed evidence showed that Mrs. Traiser was the holder of the reversion in the premises, and Pratt the holder of a life estate, and that the negotiations for the letting were wholly with a third person who claimed to hold by an oral lease from Pratt and to have acted for herself in letting the rooms to the plaintiff. There was no evidence to show that Mrs. Traiser and Pratt were acting together in control of the propety. One or the other or neither, could have been found to be in control of the premises, but not both.
This, however, does not control our determination; for the stipulation presents the question whether either or both cases were for the jury, not whether the jury's action can be sustained.
It is established firmly as the law of Massachusetts that in the ordinary letting of real estate there is no implied undertaking by the lessor that the premises are fit for occupancy, and there is no liability on the lessor for injury which results from a defective condition of the premises of which he and those who act for him in the letting are ignorant. There is no obligation on the lessor to examine and inform himself of the condition of the premises before leasing them. The law is clearly and forcibly stated with sufficient citation of authority in Stumpf v. Leland, 242 Mass. 168, 136 N. E. 399.
The declarations are drawn in full recognition of the law as there stated. They allege that the defect existed at the time of the letting and that the lessor or those acting for him or her knew then of the defect. The evidence, however, as matter of law, does not support the allegations. There is no evidence that any one knew of the defect, if there was one, at the time of the letting. The plaintiff, and all the witnesses who touch this point, declare that they saw the floor of the closet at that time and that it seemed sound. The plaintiff testified that she went into the closet six and seven times a day, and walked over the board; that nothing about it attracted her attention and ‘there wasn't anything to see but what was all right; it showed all right.’
The accident occurred July 27, 1920, nearly four months after the plaintiff entered, and the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway
...124 N.E. 13. Bergeron v. Forest, 233 Mass. 392, 398, 124 N.E. 74. Borden v. Hirsh, 249 Mass. 205, 210, 143 N.E. 912. Bolieau v. Traiser, 253 Mass. 346, 348, 148 N.E. 809. Shepard v. Worcester County Inst. for Sav., 304 Mass. 220, 221, 23 N.E.2d 119. Hart v. Windsor, 12 M. & W. The record of......
-
Anderson v. Hamilton Gardens, Inc.
...106 Ga.App. 22, 126 S.E.2d 244; Newman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 77 N.D. 466, 43 N.W.2d 411, 17 A.L.R.2d 694; Bolieau v. Traiser, 253 Mass. 346, 148 N.E. 809; 32 Am.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, § 672; see also Newell v. Weisman, 113 Conn. 744, 746, 156 A. 886; Prosser, Torts (3d Ed.) § 63, Ten......
-
Chelefou v. Springfield Inst. for Sav.
...31 N.E. 286,16 L.R.A. 51, 32 Am.St.Rep. 460. Here the defect, if any, arose after the beginning of the tenancy. Bolieau v. Traiser, 253 Mass. 346, 349, 350, 148 N.E. 809. There was no express agreement to maintain the premises in a safe condition for occupancy. An agreement of this kind is ......
-
Horton v. Marston
...the statements in certain cases that the Ingalls case is 'limited * * * very carefully to its particular facts' (Bolieau v. Traiser, 253 Mass. 346, 349, 148 N.E. 809, 810); that it is a 'somewhat limited exception' (Chelefou v. Springfield Inst. for Sav., 297 Mass. 236, 239, 8 N.E.2d 769); ......