Coupe v. Platt

• Citation: 52 N.E. 526,172 Mass. 458
• Parties: COUPE v. PLATT.
• Decision Date: 09 January 1899
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

172 Mass. 458

52 N.E. 526

COUPE v. PLATT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

January 9, 1899

COUNSEL

M.R. Hitch, for plaintiff.

R.F Raymond, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, J.

The question how far a host is liable to his guest for the unsafe condition of his premises, when he is visited upon an invitation, express or implied, merely in a social way, from considerations of friendship or for pleasure, is not raised by this bill of exceptions. The judge assumed in favor of the defendant that the law of this commonwealth is like that of England, where it is held that, in the absence of traps neither the poor nor the rich are bound to change the conditions in which they are accustomed to live, in order to furnish for their friends or guests, recipients of their gratuitous hospitality, safer or more comfortable surroundings than they have for themselves and their families. The English law on this subject was somewhat considered in Hart v. Cole, 156 Mass. 475-478, 31 N.E. 644, and in Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426, 31 N.E. 128; but whether it is to be followed in this commonwealth has never been decided. The question in this case is different. The defendant was a landlord, who maintained outside steps and a platform for the use in common of tenants of different parts of her building. The plaintiff was injured by a defect in the platform while passing over it on a visit to one of the tenants, made on his express invitation to come on a particular day for a particular purpose. The duty of the defendant to keep the platform safe for the tenant and for those claiming under him grew out of the contract of hiring. It was a part of the contract that the platform should be kept reasonably safe for the tenant for use in connection with his tenement. The contract impliedly included not only the tenant himself but the members of his family, and his servants and agents who might rightfully occupy and use the tenement with him. It included boarders and lodgers, if, in a proper use of the tenement, such person might be received there by the tenant. It included all persons who, in connection with the use of the tenement by the tenant, might properly pass over the platform under the express authority of the tenant and his right. To all such persons, by virtue of her contract with the tenant, the landlord owed the same duty that she owed to the tenant personally to keep the platform reasonably safe. ...