Cerricola v. Darena
| Decision Date | 28 February 1929 |
| Citation | 165 N.E. 124,266 Mass. 267 |
| Parties | CERRICOLA v. DARENA et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; R. F. Raymond, Judge.
Action by Alfredo Cerricola, by next friend, against Mary Darena and others. Verdict was directed for defendants. On report from the superior court. Judgment for defendants.S. D. Bacigalupo and A. P. Gay, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
A. E. Bent, and W. I. Badger, both of Boston, for defendants.
The plaintiff, minor child of a tenant of the defendants, living with his parents in premises in Boston, was injured by falling through a glass skylight covering a light shaft which extended above the roof of the building. The light shaft stood close to the edge of the roof and near a penthouse covering a stairway leading to the roof. Its covering, of which the skylight was part, extended from the wall of the penthouse on an incline and overhung the side of the shaft. Where it rested against the penthouse it was four feet, eight inches high, and at its lowest point three feet, six inches high above the roof level. It was five feet, two inches wide, and the frame and glass of the skylight was three feet, nine inches wide. The tenants in the building were expected to use the roof in common for the purposes incidental to the use of their tenements. At the time of the letting to the plaintiff's father, the roof was floored with boards, and was surrounded by a fence which followed the edge of the roof, passed around the light shaft, and ended against the penthouse wall between the light shaft and the jamb of the penthouse door. The skylight was then in good condition. During the occupancy, the original fence was replaced by another which followed the edge of the roof, but did not enclose the light shaft. The glass of the skylight remained strong; but the putty and lead became weakened. The plaintiff's father reported this condition to one or both defendants, and was told it would be taken care of. Some time later and before any repair had been made, the plaintiff, then six or seven years of age, climbed upon the skylight and sat upon it. The glass gave way, and plaintiff fell to the bottom of the shaft.
The law is settled that a landlord is bound to keep stairways, roofs and areas intended to be used in common by his tenants in reasonably safe condition for the use contemplated. He is not bound to keep them in better repair than they purported to be in at the time of the letting. Andrews v. Williamson, 193 Mass. 92, 94...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durkin v. Lewitz
...178. Massachusetts holds him only to a maintenance of the condition in which they existed at the time of the letting. Cerricola v. Darena, 1929, 266 Mass. 267, 165 N.E. 124; Faxon v. Butler, 1910, 206 Mass. 500, 92 N.E. In Purcell v. English, 1882, 86 Ind. 34, the court justified its adopti......
-
Chelefou v. Springfield Inst. for Sav.
...Eisenhauer v. Ceppi, 238 Mass. 458, 461, 131 N.E. 184;Landers v. Brooks, 258 Mass. 1, 3, 154 N.E. 265, 49 A.L.R. 562;Cerricola v. Darena, 266 Mass. 267, 269, 165 N.E. 124;Stern v. Swartz, 283 Mass. 436, 186 N.E. 584. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the agreement contemplat......
-
Urban v. Central Massachusetts Elec. Co.
...the pole for a purpose for which it was never intended. Eisenhauer v. Ceppi, 238 Mass. 458 . Landers v. Brooks, 258 Mass. 1 . Cerricola v. Darena, 266 Mass. 267 Wozniak's Case, 299 Mass. 471 . There was no invitation to use the pole as a vantage point to ascertain the approach of other chil......
-
Cohen v. Davies
...for the use contemplated. He is not bound, however, to keep them safe for uses to which they were not meant to be put. Cerricola v. Darena, 266 Mass. 267 , 269, and cited. Although the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant, his status at the time of his alleged injury is important in dete......