Elsenhauer v. Ceppi

• Decision Date: 25 May 1921
• Parties: ELSENHAUER v. CEPPI et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

238 Mass. 458

131 N.E. 184

ELSENHAUER

v.CEPPI et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1921.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Robert F. Raymond, Judge.

Action by Laura F. Eisenhauer against William Ceppi and others. Verdict for defendants, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

The action was by a member of a tenant's family against the landlord for personal injuries sustained by the giving way of a railing around the roof of a veranda described in the opinion. Plaintiff relied on an agreement by the landlord's agent to make the premises safe and keep them in good repair and in safe condition. The exceptions were to the admission of evidence as to the purpose for which the veranda and the railing were constructed and to the exclusion of evidence concerning the condition of the wood composing the railing when examined by a carpenter sometime after the injury.James E. Cotter, Joseph P. Fagan, and Edward S. Farmer, all of Boston, for plaintiff.

Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston, for defendants.

CARROLL, J.

The plaintiff was injured November 10, 1916, by falling from the roof of a veranda or piazza of a dwelling house, owned by the female defendant, who will be hereafter referred to as the defendant. The house was hired by the plaintiff's father and occupied by his family, including the plaintiff, for about six years prior to the accident. It was two stories in height, with a gable roof. On the front a veranda with a wooden railing around the roof extended to the second story. There was evidence that when the contract was made the defendant agreed ‘to make the premises safe, keep them in good repair and in safe condition during the occupancy’ of the tenant. The plaintiff stepped from one of the rooms to the veranda roof and was shaking a ‘dust rag’ when a part of the railing gave way and she fell to the ground, a distance of from 12 to 20 feet. The veranda extended the full width of the house. It was about 22 feet in length, and 6 or 7 feet wide. Its roof was covered with tin and sloped from the house to the railing a little over 6 inches, and from the center to either side about 6 inches. There were three windows opening onto it, but no door. The window sills were 21 1/4 inches from the roof, and from the floor of the rooms 22 1/2 inches. The jury found for the defendant and the case is before us on the plaintiff's exceptions to the admission and exclusion of certain evidence.

One Lamont, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he was employed by the defendant to make repairs on the veranda roof; the offer was made to show by this witness that on December 11, 1916, when he inspected the railing he found that the wood appeared to be decayed and showed a generally unsafe condition. The evidence was excluded, subject to the plaintiff's exception. In the deposition of the defendant she testified that she formerly occupied the house, that the roof was constructed to shade or shelter the floor of the piazza and the railing was put on to beautify the house. She also testified that it was not intended that any one should go out on the roof and that she never knew of any one going there. To the admission of this evidence the plaintiff also excepted. The evidence admitted and that excluded were immaterial, and the plaintiff was not harmed by the ruling of the trial...