Cederberg v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 27 December 1929
• Docket Number: No. 27569.,27569.
• Citation: 179 Minn. 104,228 N.W. 352
• Parties: CEDERBERG v. NELSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

228 N.W. 352

179 Minn. 104

CEDERBERG v. NELSON.

No. 27569.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 27, 1929.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Julius E. Haycraft, Judge.

Action by Annette Cederberg against Gust F. Nelson. From an order denying his alternative motion for judgment non obstante or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Thomson & Williams, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

R. E. Plankerton, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Defendant owned a two-story frame apartment building in the city of Minneapolis, and rented the apartments therein to tenants under verbal leases with the understanding that he was to furnish no janitor service and that the halls and walk were to be kept clean by the tenants themselves. A flight of eight concrete steps led from a porch at the front of the building down to a walk which led to the sidewalk. There were no gutters on the roof of the porch to carry away the water from the melting snow which accumulated thereon; and the water from such melting snow fell from the roof directly upon the steps where it froze and formed icy ridges. On February 23, 1928, plaintiff visited a friend who occupied an apartment in the building, and as she was going down the steps when leaving she slipped on the ice on one of them and fell, breaking her leg. She brought suit against defendant and recovered a verdict. Defendant appealed from a denial of the usual alternative motion for judgment non obstante or for a new trial.

Defendant claims that the facts bring this case within the doctrine of Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520, 65 N. W. 913, 914, and the cases approving that doctrine. In that case the court said: "Where there is no agreement to repair leased premises by the landlord, and he is not guilty of any fraud or concealment as to their safe condition, and the defects in the premises are not secret, but obvious, the tenant takes the risk of their safe occupancy; and the landlord is not liable to him or to any person entering under his title, or who is upon the premises by his invitation, for injuries sustained by reason of the unsafe condition of the premises."

Plaintiff claims that the facts bring the instant cases within the doctrine of Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397, 95 N. W. 224, and the cases approving that doctrine. In that case the water from the roof of a building occupied by tenants was conducted by a pipe to within a few inches of the sidewalk and was there discharged upon a...