Fenno v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 02 May 1951 |
| Citation | 98 N.E.2d 611,327 Mass. 305 |
| Parties | FENNO v. ROBERTS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
A. E. Kahn, Boston, for plaintiff.
L. Karp, Boston, J. Klarfeld, Boston, for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, SPALDING and COUNIHAN, JJ.
The plaintiff, one of several tenants in an apartment building in Boston owned by the defendant, brought this action of tort to recover for personal injuries sustained in the early evening of January 5, 1948, when the plaintiff fell on an unlighted common stairway leading from the street to his second floor apartment, above a store, and then to the floor above. The plaintiff had a verdict. The defendant excepted, among other things, to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict in his favor.
The plaintiff became a tenant at will on April 1, 1947, when the owner and landlord was Columbia National Life Insurance Company. The building was conveyed to the defendant on October 1, 1947. Up to that time there was a janitor, and the light on the stairway was kept lighted all the time. Two or three days after October 1, 1947, the light ceased to be maintained. The plaintiff first met the defendant not earlier than October 7, 1947, when the plaintiff told him that the light in question was out of order, but the defendant made no promise to repair it.
The conveyance to the defendant on October 1, 1947, converted the plaintiff's tenancy into a tenancy at sufferance. Marion v. Bryson, 326 Mass. 618, 96 N.E.2d 165. While the plaintiff remained a tenant at sufferance, the defendant owed him no duty of care. Galjaard v. Day, 325 Mass. 475, 476, 91 N.E.2d 345. The plaintiff could not have become a tenant at will of the defendant before October 7, 1947, for there is no evidence that he and the defendant had any communication or dealing before that date. When the plaintiff became a tenant at will, the general rule applied that the defendant owed him the duty to use reasonable care to keep the common stairway in as good condition as it appeared to be when the tenancy at will began. Sneckner v. Feingold, 314 Masss. 613, 614, 51 N.E.2d 118; Marion v. Bryson, 326 Mass. 618, 96 N.E.2d 165; Sordillo v. Fradkin, 282 Mass. 255, 257, 184 N.E. 666. The lighting of the stairway was not a part of its condition when the tenancy began, because at that time the light had ceased to be maintained for several days.
In the absence of contractual or statutory obligation, it is settled that a landlord is not bound to light a common stairway. McGowan v. Monahan, 199 Mass. 296, 298, 85 N.E. 105, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 928; Stone v. Lewis, 215 Mass. 594, 597, 104 N.E. 284, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 471; Polansky v. Heller, 241 Mass. 484, 485, 135 N.E. 572; Carey v. Klein, 259 Mass. 90, 92, 155 N.E. 868; Rodde v. Nolan, 281 Mass. 493, 497, 183 N.E. 471; Sodekson v. Lynch, 298 Mass. 72, 9 N.E.2d 372; Heilbronner v. Scahill, 303 Mass. 336, 337, 21 N.E.2d 716; Donnelly v. Larkin, 327 Mass. 287, 98 N.E.2d 280.
There is no evidence that the defendant ever promised the plaintiff himself to light the stairway.
There was, however, evidence that in December, 1947, the plaintiff's wife complained to the defendant about the absence of light, and the defendant promised her that he would put the light on. There was no evidence that the wife threatened to quit the premises unless the light should be restored, Withington v. Rome, 258 Mass. 188, 154 N.E. 764, or of any other form of consideration for the promise. Bailey v. First Realty Co., 305 Mass. 306, 25 N.E.2d 712. In a case where the plaintiff was hurt by a fall through a weak balustrade around a second floor piazza, and the defendant had failed to keep his promise to repair the defect, this court said, 'Even if the promise was founded upon a valuable consideration, its breach by mere omission to act gave rise only to an action of contract and not to an action of tort.' Sordillo v. Fradkin, 282 Mass. 255, 257, 184 N.E. 666, 667. See also Chelefou v. Springfield Institution for Savings, 297 Mass. 236, 239, 242, 8 N.E.2d 769; Bailey v. First Realty Co., 305 Mass. 306, 307, 25 N.E.2d 712; Cleary v. Union Realty Co., 300 Mass. 312, 313, 15 N.E.2d 184; Blood v. Dewey, 315 Mass. 500, 504, 53 N.E.2d 227.
The plaintiff contends that the defendant was under a statutory obligaton to light the stairway. Sodekson v. Lynch, 298 Mass. 72, 9 N.E.2d 372; Id., 314 Mass. 161, 49 N.E.2d 901; Heilbronner v. Scahill, 303 Mass. 336, 21 N.E.2d 716; Richmond v. Warren Institution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denny v. Burbeck
...absence of contractual or statutory obligation, it is settled that a landlord is not bound to light a common stairway. Fenno v. Roberts, 327 Mass. 305, 307, 98 N.E.2d 611, and cases cited. There was no evidence here of an express agreement at the time of the letting touching the matter of l......
-
Stedfast v. Rebon Realty Co.
...v. Bryson, 326 Mass. 618, 619, 96 N.E.2d 165; Donnelly v. Larkin, 327 Mass. 287, 290, 98 N.E.2d 280, 25 A.L.R.2d 487; Fenno v. Roberts, 327 Mass. 305, 307, 98 N.E.2d 611. The tenancy at will from the Abromsons ended with the conveyance to the defendant corporation. Farris v. Hershfield, 325......
-
Stapleton v. Cohen
...of contractual or statutory obligation, it is settled that a landlord is not bound to light a common stairway.' Fenno v. Roberts, 327 Mass. 305, 307, 98 N.E.2d 611, 612, and cases cited. There is no evidence that the landlord expressly or impliedly had assumed the obligation to provide arti......