La Brasca v. Hinchman

• Decision Date: 19 May 1911
• Citation: 81 N.J.L. 367,79 A. 885
• Parties: LA BRASCA et al. v. HINCHMAN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

79 A. 885

81 N.J.L. 367

LA BRASCA et al.

v. HINCHMAN.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

May 19, 1911.

Action by Antonio La Brasca and others against Isaac H. Hinchman. Verdict for plaintiffs, and rule issued. Rule discharged.

Argued June term, 1910, before GUMMERE, C. J., and TRENCHARD and? UNTURN, JJ.

Herbert C. Bartlett, for plaintiffs.

John P. Harned, for defendant.

MINTURN, J. The parties to this suit are landlord and tenant; the former having rented certain premises in Cumberland county, upon which was a barn, to the plaintiff. While using the barn, the floor thereof became out of repair, and the plaintiff, the tenant, spoke to the defendant regarding the condition, and requested him to make the necessary repairs. This the defendant undertook to do, and laid a new floor upon the old beams. The floor collapsed under one of plaintiff's horses, resulting in the horse's death, and this suit was instituted to recover the value of the animal. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and thereupon was granted this rule which is intended to present for review the question of the legal liability of the landlord under the facts in the case.

The gravamen of the defense is that, since there was no covenant or promise to repair contained in the written lease upon the part of the landlord, no legal obligation can arise which will subject the landlord to liability for an accident which could be avoided by the tenant in the exercise of his conceded duty to make repairs. The contention loses sight of the real difficulty in the case, for the claim of the plaintiff is not based upon the actual want of repairs which the tenant was under a duty to assume, but upon the tort-feasauce of the landlord in undertaking to make the repairs, and in doing the work negligently. The liability, if it exist, therefore arises entirely ab extra the lease between the parties.

The principle of liability involved received its first notable application in the famous adjudication of Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raymond, 909, where Lord Holt gave expression to the doctrine of misfeasance as applied to the dereliction of a mere volunteer, and this doctrine has since found application in various phases of tort-feasance. In that case the bailee undertook to carry the hogsheads of wine as a mere volunteer, and did it so negligently that damage resulted. Liability was not predicated upon a contractual relationship, nor upon the interposition of a consideration or benefit accruing to the bailee, but upon the common-law doctrine that one who undertakes to perform an act and performs it negligently whereby damage results is liable for his misfeasance. Chancellor Kent enunciated the doctrine in Thorne v. Deas, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 94,...