Boulton v. Dorrington
Decision Date | 06 March 1939 |
Citation | 302 Mass. 407,19 N.E.2d 731 |
Parties | BOULTON v. DORRINGTON. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Donahue, Judge.
Personal injury action by Edward A. Boulton against Rayford E. Dorrington, administrator of the Estate of Lillian B. Varney, deceased. A verdict was directed for the defendant. On plaintiff's exception.
Exceptions overruled.
P. J. Duane, of Waltham, for plaintiff.
A. E. Whittemore, of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff, a tenant, fell on an open platform or porch outside the front door of a four-apartment house by reason of its icy condition. The platform was used by him in common with other tenants. It is assumed for the purposes of this decision that the defendant's intestate was the owner of the house and that the platform and steps connected therewith were in her control.
On the day of the plaintiff's fall it was snowing, sleeting and raining, there was sleet on streets and sidewalks generally, and ice on the walk leading to the street and on the steps. The plaintiff described the ice on the steps as ‘transparent as glass.’ There is nothing in the record to indicate that the presence of the ice on the platform where the plaintiff fell was not due solely to prevailing weather conditions. O'Donoughue v. Moors, 208 Mass. 473, 94 N.E. 749.
The relation of landlord and tenant imposes no obligation on the landlord to remove snow or ice naturally accumulating on areas provided for the common use of tenants, or to provide a cover for portions of such areas as were uncovered at the time of the letting. Rogers v. Dudley Realty Corp., Mass., 16 N.E.2d 244, and cases cited; Woods v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 134 Mass. 357, 361,45 Am.Rep. 344.
There was no evidence to warrant a finding that the ice on the platform which caused the plaintiff's fall was there by reason of any defect in the premises, or a finding that by express or implied contract the defendant's intestate assumed the obligation to keep the platform free of ice. Smolesky v. Kotler, 270 Mass. 32, 169 N.E. 486. According to the testimony of the plaintiff the only special obligation which the defendant's intestate, at the time of the letting, assumed as to future conditions on the premises or as to repairs, was to remedy such conditions and to make such repairs on notice from the plaintiff. No such notice was given as to the condition of the platform or steps. It does not appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial