Chambers v. Lowe

• Decision Date: 07 December 1933
• Citation: 117 Conn. 624,169 A. 912
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CHAMBERS v. LOWE.

169 A. 912

117 Conn. 624

CHAMBERS v. LOWE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 7, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Frank P. McEvoy, Judge.

Action by Rebecca Chambers against Mary A. Lowe to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence.

Judgment was entered for defendant after trial to the court, and plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Isadore E. Finkelstein, of Hartford, for appellant.

Robert L. Halloran and Wilson C. Jainsen, both of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff is a child who was about three years old when this action was tried. She lived with her parents in a tenement house owned by the defendant and suffered injuries by reason of the falling of a section of plaster from the ceiling of a room in which she was sleeping. The apartment occupied by the family consisted of five rooms with a large hall. It was rented from the defendant, and the trial court states in the finding that it was in the sole control of the plaintiff's father and family, the defendant having no right of entry except such as might be extended to her by the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff rests her right to recover solely upon the provision in section 2563 of the General Statutes that " each building used as a tenement, lodging or boarding house and all parts thereof shall be kept in good repair." The question presented is, Does this provision give a right of action against the owner of a tenement house due to a lack of repair in an apartment rented as a whole and which is found to be in the exclusive control of the tenant?

Granted that the language of the statute is in itself broad enough to impose an obligation upon the owner of a tenement house to make ordinary repairs in an apartment and to give to a person injured by a breach of that requirement a cause of action against the owner, it does not necessarily follow that we are bound to give such a literal construction to it, where the result will be to carry its effect beyond the intent of the Legislature. Bridgeport v. Hubbell, 5 Conn. 237, 243; National Fireproofing Co. v. Huntington, 81 Conn. 632, 634, 71 A. 911, 20 L.R.A. (N. S.) 261, 129 Am.St.Rep. 228; City of Stamford v. Town of Stamford, 107 Conn. 596, 606, 141 A. 891; Merchants Bank & Trust Co. v. Pettison, 112 Conn. 652, 655, 153 A. 789. In determining the legislative intent we must look beyond the literal meaning of the words to the history of the law, its language considered in all its parts, the mischief it was designed to remedy, and the policy underlying it. Merchants Bank & Trust Co. v. Pettison, supra; State v. Giant's Neck Land & Improvement Co., 116 Conn. 119, 124, 163 A. 651; Savings Bank of Rockville v. Wilcox, 117 Conn. 188, 193, 167 A. 709.

The chapter in the General Statutes which contains the provision in question was first enacted in 1911 and was entitled " An Act concerning Sanitary Conditions in Tenement, Lodging, and Boarding Houses." Public Acts 1911, chap. 220. It dealt particularly with sanitary conditions in these buildings, as distinguished from provisions regulating the method of their construction, an act concerning which, as regards tenement houses, was passed at the same session of the Legislature. Public Acts 1911, chap. 241. The former act began with certain definitions of the terms used in it, which are still a part of our law. General Statutes, § 2562. It stated that the words " tenement house" should mean: " Any house or building, or portion thereof, which is rented, leased, let, *** or is occupied, as the home or residence of three or more families living independently of each other and doing their cooking upon the premises, and having a common right in the halls, stairways, or yards; " and it went on to state that the word " apartment" should mean " a room or suite of rooms occupied or designed to be occupied as a family domicile." Section 1. The third section of the act provided that " every tenement house, and all parts thereof, shall be kept in good repair, and the roofs shall be so kept as not to leak and all rain water shall be so drained and conveyed therefrom as to prevent its dripping onto the ground or causing dampness in the walls, ceilings, yards, or areas."

If the definitions we have quoted be applied to this provision of the law, it at once becomes apparent that the Legislature had in mind the imposition of an obligation to keep the building in repair, as distinguished from the separate apartments in it; and this fact is emphasized if regard be had to the provision made as to roofs and drainage. Indeed, had it intended to include the case of ordinary repairs within an apartment, it would be natural to suppose that the statute would have been so drawn as to evince that intent. In 1913 the language of the section was changed to its present form, so that in place of the words " every tenement house" it was made to read " every building used as a tenement, lodging, or boarding house." Public Acts 1913, chap. 29, § 1. One purpose of this amendment was obviously to include in the provision lodging and boarding houses; but the reason for inserting the words " building used as" a tenement, lodging, or boarding house, is not apparent. At any rate the insertion of the word " building" does not detract from, but rather emphasizes, that the legislative intent was directed to the building as a whole rather than to the separate apartments within it.

Light upon the legislative intent can also be gathered from another provision of the act. As originally passed it contained a provision that every tenement, lodging, or boarding house and every part thereof, should be kept free from dirt or fifth, and required " the owner" of every such house or part thereof to cleanse it. Public Acts 1911, chap. 220, § 2. In 1917 this was amended so as to read substantially in its present form, imposing the obligation to cleanse the various portions of the house upon " the owner, tenant, lessee or occupant" of it or any part of it of which he is " the owner, tenant, lessee or occupant." Public Acts 1917, chap. 227; General Statutes, § 2563. Apparently this change was made because of the realization that the obvious purpose of this portion of the law, to...