Carey v. Klein
| Decision Date | 05 April 1927 |
| Citation | 259 Mass. 90 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | GEORGIANNA CAREY v. ISRAEL KLEIN & others. ARTHUR J. CAREY v. SAME. |
November 9, 1926.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., CROSBY, PIERCE CARROLL, & WAIT, JJ.
Landlord and Tenant, Landlord's liability to guest of tenant, Common stairway. Negligence, Of one owning or controlling real estate. Municipal Corporations, By-laws and ordinances building laws.
A landlord of a tenement building, occupied by tenants for dwelling purposes is under no obligation to light the common halls and stairways under his control unless he is bound to do so by statutory provisions or has undertaken to do so by express or implied agreement; no such implied agreement arises by the mere relation of landlord and tenant, nor merely from the fact that the construction of the premises left halls and stairways unlighted.
In the absence of such an express or implied agreement or statutory provision a tenant in such a building takes the premises as he finds them, and those who come to them because of social or business relations with him do not have any right greater than his.
It was proper to order a verdict for the defendant at the trial of an action of tort for personal injuries received when the plaintiff, calling upon a tenant in a tenement building owned by the defendant, fell upon an unlighted stairway, where it appeared that, while the defendant furnished gas fixtures and gas for the lighting of the stairway, he required the tenants of the apartment on each floor to attend to the light on that floor, such evidence not warranting a finding that the defendant either expressly or impliedly undertook to light the stairway in question.
The owner of two tenement houses under one roof, each three stories in height with a single apartment on each floor and having a separate entrance from the front leading to premises let separately to the tenants and not giving access to the tenements of the other house, is not placed under a duty to have such entry hall lighted by reason of a city ordinance requiring, "The public halls and stairways within every office building, three or more stories in height, and within every tenement house, three or more stories in height, if for more than four families, shall have gas or electric lights so located that the stairs and landings shall be adequately lighted, and it shall be compulsory on the part of the owner of such building to keep said lights lighted from sunset to sunrise."
TWO ACTIONS OF TORT, the first for personal injuries suffered when the plaintiff fell upon an unlighted stairway in a tenement building owned by the defendant, and the second, by the husband of the plaintiff in the first action, for consequential damages. Writs dated October 17, 1923.
In the Superior Court, the actions were tried together before Whiting, J. Material evidence is described in the opinion. The jury found for the plaintiff Georgianna in the sum of $3,000, and for the plaintiff Arthur in the sum of $500. Upon the return, but before the recording of the verdicts, the judge reserved leave, with the assent of the jury, to enter a verdict for the defendant, if, upon the exceptions taken or the questions of law reserved, the Superior Court or the Supreme Judicial Court should decide that such verdict for the defendant should have been entered. Afterwards by order of the judge verdicts were entered for the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
The cases were submitted on briefs. J.L. Gray, for the plaintiffs.
F.G. Wooden, H.P. Small, & R.D. Mallory, for the defendants.
These were actions by husband and wife to recover for damages alleged to have been received in consequence of the fall of the wife upon an unlighted stairway in a tenement building owned by the defendant. She had been calling upon her sister, whose husband was the defendant's tenant of the apartment upon the second floor of the building numbered 364 Chestnut Street, in Springfield, and was on her way out of the building when she fell on the last step of the common stairway between the second and first stories. Upon contradictory evidence, the jury could have found that the hall and stairs at the place were dark; that she was using due care; and that her injuries were caused by her fall and not by disease which led to the fall.
No contention is made that any liability rests upon the defendant unless he owed a duty to light the place of the fall.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garland v. Stetson
... ... duty on owners an additional word or two would have expressed ... that result. Compare Carey v. Klein, 259 Mass. 90, ... 155 N.E. 868; Brodsky v. Fine, 263 Mass. 51, 160 ... N.E. 335; ... [292 Mass. 103] ... Steele v. Lifland, 265 Mass ... ...
-
Agosta v. Granite City Real Estate Co., 1783
...32 Am.Jur., p. 576; 25 A.L.R. 1312; Hawes v. Chase, 84 N.H. 170, 147 A. 748; Lengas v. Resnick, 87 N.H. 161, 175 A. 824; Carey v. Klein, 259 Mass. 90, 92, 155 N.E. 868; Sodekson v. Lynch, 298 Mass. 72, 9 N.E.2d 372; Rietzel v. Cary, 66 R.I. 418, 19 A.2d 760, We have no such statute and the ......
-
McCarthy v. Isenberg Bros.
...v. Hale, 220 Mass. 461, 465-466. Pizzano v. Shuman, 229 Mass. 240 , 242-243. Draper v. Cotting, 231 Mass. 51 , 59-60. Carey v. Klein, 259 Mass. 90 , 92. Bronstein v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 285 Mass. 491 495. Wynn v. Sullivan, 294 Mass. 562 , 564-565. Marquis v. John Nesmith Real Estate Co......
-
Thompson v. Franckus
...of the rule was not available to the plaintiff where it was not presented at the trial. * * * * * * 'But it was said in Carey v. Klein (1927) 259 Mass. 90, 155 N.E. 868, that, standing alone, the fact that the construction of the premises leaves halls and stairways unlighted does not place ......