Corey v. Losse
| Decision Date | 23 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 26248 |
| Citation | 297 S.W. 32 |
| Parties | COREY v. LOSSE |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Motion for Rehearing Overruled. July 13, 1927.
George F. Beck, of St. Louis, for appellant.
W. E Moser and Hensley, Allen & Marsalek, all of St. Louis for respondent.
The plaintiff, an infant, by his mother as next friend, sued the defendant for damages for personal injuries. At the close of the case, plaintiff suffered a nonsuit with leave, and appealed.
Plaintiff's mother occupied rooms on the second floor of a tenement house in the city of St Louis, which she had leased from the defendant. There is a porch, four feet square, attached to the rear of the leased rooms, which was in the exclusive possession and control of plaintiff's mother. The porch was at the top of the rear stairs. The stair banister continued around the west and north sides of the porch. It consisted of three boards about three inches wide and placed horizontally about nine inches apart. One of the middle boards was broken but remained in place. The defendant neglected to repair this after frequent requests. The plaintiff, who was about 2 years old, leaned against this board, and, because of its broken condition, it gave way, and he fell to the brick pavement below, sustaining a fractured skull and other serious and permanent injuries. The damages were laid at $ 20,000. Plaintiff bases his claim of defendant's liability solely upon an ordinance of the city of St. Louis, the material part of which reads:
'It shall be the duty of every owner, trustee or lessee of every tenement house to provide for and maintain the same in all parts in good repair.'
The facts are not in dispute. The defendant leased the rooms to plaintiff's mother. The lease did not provide that the lessor would make repairs. The porch was used exclusively by plaintiff's mother in connection with the leased rooms. In the absence of such an agreement in the lease, the landlord cannot be held for damages suffered as a result of a failure to make repairs. Glenn v. Hill, 210 Mo. 291, 109 S.W. 27, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699; Rice v. White (Mo. Sup.) 239 S.W. 141 (7); section 7048, R. S. 1919.
There being no contract obligation on the defendant's part to keep the premises in repair, that duty cannot be imposed upon him by an ordinance of the city. The city of St. Louis may adopt ordinances, but they must be in harmony with, and subject to, the Constitution and laws of the state. Sections 20 and 23, art. 9, of the Constitution; City v....
To continue reading
Request your trial