Civale v. Meriden Housing Authority

• Decision Date: 11 June 1963
• Citation: Civale v. Meriden Housing Authority, 192 A.2d 548, 150 Conn. 594 (Conn. 1963)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Joseph CIVALE v. MERIDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 548

192 A.2d 548

150 Conn. 594

Joseph CIVALE v.MERIDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 11, 1963.

Joseph P. Patrucco, Meriden, with whom was Leonard J. Powers, Meriden, for appellant(plaintiff).

John E. McNerney, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Francis J. Moran, New Haven, for appellee(defendant).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

BALDWIN, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff sued to recover damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell from a stairway leading to the basement in his apartment in the defendant's housing development.The facts found by the trial court can be stated in summary as follows: The plaintiff, his wife and their three children occupied, as tenants under an oral lease from month to month, a four-room apartment in the housing development.The development consisted of a number of separate housing units, each containing one-, two-, three- or four-family apartments.The plaintiff's apartment was in a unit which had three other four-room apartments.It consisted of two rooms on the second floor, two rooms on the ground floor, and a basement.A stairway led from the kitchen on the ground floor to the basement.This stairway was wholly within the premises leased by the plaintiff and was used only by him and his family.It was constructed of two wooden stringers, each two inches by ten inches, extending from the first floor to the basement, with stair treads between.The treads were supported by cleats nailed to the stringers and were themselves nailed to the cleats and also to the stringers.During the eight years of the plaintiff's occupancy, no interior repairs to the apartment were made and none were necessary.The plaintiff, during this time, used the stairway without any difficulty and did not notice anything wrong with it.On March 25, 1958, he was descending the stairway when the third tread from the bottom gave way, causing him to fall and injure himself.The tread fell to the basement floor, but it was not broken or splintered.The cleats on which it had rested were in their proper position, and the stringers were intact and not damaged.On the day following his fall, the plaintiff reported it to the defendant and requested that the stairway be repaired.The defendant's superintendent repaired the stairway the same day.The defendant had not previously inspected the interior of the plaintiff's apartment or the stairway for the purpose of...