Coggin v. Starke Bros. Realty Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 02 December 1980 |
Citation | 391 So.2d 111 |
Parties | Marguerite G. COGGIN v. STARKE BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY, INC., and Bragg Apartments. 79-790. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Alvin T. Prestwood and Claude P. Rosser, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
James H. Anderson of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, Montgomery, for appellee Starke Bros. Realty Co., Inc.
Richard B. Garrett and Dennis R. Bailey of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, Montgomery, for appellee Bragg Apartments, Inc.
Appellant appeals from the trial court's granting of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees on the issue of a landlord's duty to maintain common areas and passageways of residential premises. We reverse and remand.
Appellant Marguerite G. Coggin is a 68-year-old widow who executed a residential lease for an apartment at 101-A Carey Drive in Montgomery, Alabama, in June of 1978. Upon taking possession of the premises, she noticed that the back steps leading up to her dwelling were "steep and narrow" and lacked a handrail. These steps were a portion of the common area of the rental property used by Ms. Coggin and the other tenants.
A short time thereafter, Ms. Coggin noticed two long iron railings leaning against the exterior walls of her apartment building. Later, in the fall of 1978, she observed a third railing leaning against the southern exterior wall of the building in which her apartment was located. Prior to September of 1978, she primarily used the front steps to her apartment for ingress and egress, using the back steps on occasion for carrying out the garbage to containers located behind her building. After her automobile battery was stolen from her car parked in front of her residence, she began substantial use of the back steps to her apartment. On February 8, 1979, Ms. Coggin slipped and fell down the back steps. As a result of her fall, she sustained a broken arm as well as numerous bruises and abrasions, hospitalizing her from February 8 until February 14, 1979.
While our case law is replete with the standards for review of summary judgments, we now restate certain of these principles in the context of the instant appeal. In order to overcome a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must come forward with at least a scintilla of evidence that establishes the negligence of the defendant landowner. Such evidence must exist to show, inter alia, that the defendant had a duty and that an alleged breach thereof was the proximate cause of the injury suffered by the plaintiff. Summary judgment is mandatory, then, if no genuine issue of material fact exists and, as a matter of law, the plaintiff could not prevail if proof of the alleged facts was made. Campbell v. Alabama Power Co., 378 So.2d 718 (Ala.1978).
Admittedly, the question of the existence vel non of a genuine issue of material fact remains a subjective determination, which initially confronts the trial judge. ARCP 50 and 56, and the comments thereto, stand for the proposition that, if there is a scintilla of evidence supporting the position of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, so that a triable issue is entitled to go to the jury, summary judgment cannot be granted. Consequently, the slightest genuine issue of material fact would render the trial judge's action herein improper. Hancock v. Alabama Home Mortgage Co., 372 So.2d 858 (Ala.1979).
Before applying these summary judgment standards in the instant context, a review of the applicable substantive law is appropriate. Generally, landlords have the same responsibilities to exercise due care with regard to common areas over which they retain control as ordinary owners of land would have. In this regard, tenants are considered to be the invitees of the landlord while utilizing the common areas of the landlord's property. Hancock, supra; Mudd v. Gray, 200 Ala. 92, 75 So. 468 (1917). See Comment, "Liability of an Alabama Landlord for Defects in the Premises," 3 Ala.L.Rev. 335, 349 (1951).
Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 360 (1965), adopted by this Court in Hancock, reads as follows:
In Chambers v. Buettner, 295 Ala. 8, 321 So.2d 650 (1975), this Court stated that the "rule as established in (Pearce v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 211 Ala. 639, 101 So. 585 (1924)) is also embodied in ... § 361...." Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 361 (1965), which we now reaffirm, reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gentle v. Pine Valley Apartments
...240, 241 (Ala.1992); see also Bates v. Peoples Savings Life Ins. Co. of Tuscaloosa, 475 So.2d 484 (Ala.1985); Coggin v. Starke Bros. Realty Co., 391 So.2d 111, 113 (Ala.1980); Pearce v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 211 Ala. 639, 101 So. 585 (1924); Mudd v. Gray, 200 Ala. 92, 75 So. 468......
-
Mendez v. Walgreen Co.
...and obvious danger,' viewed in light of the applicable substantive law, presents genuine issues of fact."); Coggin v. Starke Bros. Realty Co., 391 So.2d 111, 113 (Ala. 1980); Ford v. Bynum Livestock & Comm'n Co., 674 So.2d 600, 603 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995) ("dispositive issue [is] whether the ev......
-
KITCHENS BY AND THROUGH KITCHENS v. United States
...of its duty to maintain the area of the railing in a reasonably safe condition. More specifically, in Coggin v. Starke Brothers Realty Company, Inc., 391 So.2d 111, 112-113 (Ala.1980), the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed the adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 360 (1965), whic......
-
Wallace v. The Hous. Auth. of the City of Talladega
...on cases that were expressly overruled in Daniels. See discussion, infra. However, as he did before the trial court, Wallace also relies on Coggin, which reflects a separate line authority applying the principles discussed in Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 360-361 (Am. L. Inst. 1965) in d......
-
The Appellate Corner
...decision in Daniels v. Wiley, 314 So. 3d 1213 (Ala. 2020), did not apply to abrogate the standard from Coggin v. Starke Bros. Realty Co., 391 So. 2d 111 (Ala. 1980), regarding the issue of when a landlord may owe a special duty when the claim involved the allegation of an open and obvious d......