Gilloon v. Reilly

• Decision Date: 26 November 1887
• Citation: 11 A. 481,50 N.J.L. 26
• Parties: GILLOON and Wife v. REILLY and others.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

11 A. 481

50 N.J.L. 26

GILLOON and Wife

v. REILLY and others.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

November 26, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to circuit court, Hudson county.

On rule by defendants to show cause why a new trial should not be granted.

Action by Martin Gilloon and wife against the executors of Patrick Reilly for an injury to Mrs. Gilloon alleged to have been caused by a defect in the stairway of a building owned by defendants' testator, and occupied by plaintiffs as tenants. There was a verdict for plaintiffs.

James B. Vredenburgh, for the rule. Chas. C. Black, contra.

DIXON, J. The defendant's testator was the owner of a four-story building in Jersey City, divided into eight tenements, which he let to as many families, all of whom had right of passage to and from their respective tenements by means of the common halls and stairways. The plaintiffs were tenants of four rooms on the second floor. The evidence shows that the plaintiff Alice, while going down the flight of stairs leading from her apartments to the street, caught the heel of her boot in the oil-cloth on the stairs, and fell, sustaining the injury for which this suit is brought. The trial justice charged the jury that "the point was whether there was a tear or wear or defect in the oil-cloth, and whether that threw her down. If they were satisfied of defect there, then they should render their verdict for damages; there was liability on the part of the landlord, if there was defect in that particular." The jury found for the plaintiffs, and we are now asked to grant a new trial.

The testimony does not disclose any contract by the landlord for the repair of the demised premises, and consequently he is not to be deemed responsible for their condition. Mullen v. Rainear, 45 N. J. Law, 520. But we think that, under the evidence, the halls and stairways should not be regarded as part of the demised premises, within the scope of this rule. It appears to have been the understanding that the landlord should retain control of these portions of the building, lighting the halls, and covering the floors at his pleasure, and affording to the tenants, and those having lawful occasion to visit their apartments, the right of passage to and fro. With respect, therefore, to the halls and stairways, the landlord was under the responsibility of a general owner of real estate who holds out invitations or inducements to other persons to use his property. Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33. The...