Clay v. Parsons
| Decision Date | 03 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | 23176 |
| Citation | 81 So. 597,144 La. 985 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | CLAY v. PARSONS |
Rehearing Denied May 5, 1919
Hiddleston Kenner, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Woodville & Woodville, of New Orleans, for appellee.
O'NIELL, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment rejecting her demand for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the breaking of a plank in the porch of a residence owned by defendant and occupied by plaintiff and her husband. Defendant denies that plaintiff suffered any serious injury and denies that he would be liable in damages if she had been injured as a result of the accident, because the plaintiff and her husband had full knowledge of the condition of the house before renting it, and because they both assumed all risks in that respect, by expressly consenting and agreeing that defendant should not be called upon to make any repairs to the premises.
There is no doubt that plaintiff suffered a fall, causing bruises on her leg, as a result of the giving way of a weak place in the porch; but her testimony and that of the witnesses who testified in her behalf is conflicting in so many particulars that we doubt that the accident caused such serious injuries as she complains of. Our opinion, however, is that the defendant is not liable in damages for any injury suffered by plaintiff as a result of the accident. She was well aware of the unfit condition of the house before she or her husband agreed to rent it. She first agreed verbally to rent the house, with the express understanding that defendant would not make any repairs whatever on the premises. When she made application to rent the house defendant's representative told her that the house was in such bad condition that he preferred not to rent it. Plaintiff replied that she knew the condition of the house but desired to rent it, and that her husband would make whatever repairs might be needed. A few days later, she called again at defendant's office and proposed to buy the property on monthly installments. The agreement was reduced to writing, but, when defendant was informed that plaintiff was married, he told her that her husband would have to sign the agreement to authorize her to buy the property. A few days later the husband called at defendant's office and said that he would not consent to his wife's buying the property, but that he would continue renting it on the terms which she had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stumpf v. Baronne Building, Inc.
...be said to have assumed the risk resulting therefrom. The cases of McLaughlin v. Stallings, 143 La. 62, 78 So. 239, and Clay v. Parsons, 144 La. 985, 81 So. 597, cited by defendants, are not in point, for in each of cases the evidence showed that the plaintiff had expressly assumed the risk......
-
Klein v. Young
...of responsibility to others for injuries resulting from a failure to maintain the leased premises in a safe condition." In Clay v. Parsons, 144 La. 985, 81 So. 597, we held the responsibility imposed upon property owners by article 2322 of the Code was subject to the general law of negligen......
-
Green v. Southern Furniture Co.
...the tenant's recovery for damage sustained through structural defects for which the owner would otherwise be responsible. Clay v. Parsons, 144 La. 985, 81 So. 597; Pecararo v. Grover, Orleans, 5 La.App. 676. Likewise, the tenant could assume, as between himself and the owner, the latter's l......
-
Roppolo v. Pick
... ... McFlynn v. Crescent Realty ... Corporation of Delaware, La.App., 160 So. 454; Paul v. Nolen, ... La.App., 166 So. 509. In Clay v. Parsons, 144 La. 985, 81 So ... 597, it was said: ... "Our ... opinion is that the provisions of the Civil Code that hold ... the ... ...