Gleason v. Boehm

• Decision Date: 20 February 1896
• Citation: 58 N.J.L. 475,34 A. 886
• Parties: GLEASON v. BOEHM.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

34 A. 886

58 N.J.L. 475

GLEASON

v. BOEHM.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 20, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Action by Annie Gleason against Charles Boehm, in which there was a verdict for plaintiff. On rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, certified to the supreme court for its advisory opinion. Rule advised to be made absolute.

Argued November term, 1895, before BEASLEY, C. J., and LUDLOW and MAGIE, JJ.

Thomas F. Noonan, Jr., for plaintiff.

Charles L. Corbin, for defendant.

MAGIE, J. In an action brought in the Hudson circuit, plaintiff obtained a verdict against the defendant for damages for injuries received by her under the following circumstances: On November 27, 1891, plaintiff visited a Mrs. Mitchell, who, as tenant of defendant, occupied rooms or apartments on the second story of his house. Plaintiff had never entered the house before. In going to Mrs. Mitchell's room on this occasion, she passed along a hall, and up a stairway, which were used in common by Mrs. Mitchell and others who were occupying rooms or apartments in the house as defendant's tenants. She remained in Mrs. Mitchell's room until after dark on the evening of November 28, 1891. She then left her friend's rooms, to make a visit elsewhere. She was accompanied by her sister and Mrs. Mitchell's daughter, but preceded them both in passing down the last flight of steps of the stairway which led to the hall. There was no light in the hall, and she, supposing she had arrived upon the floor of the hall, went forward, and fell from the platform of that flight, receiving in the fall, the injuries for which she brought suit. There was evidence from which the jury could find that defendant had not demised to his tenants the hall and stairway, but retained control of them for their benefit There was evidence that defendant employed one of the tenants to light, every night, one light in the upper hall, which was burning that night and one light in the lower hall, which was not burning at the time of the accident. Whether it had been previously lighted was in question, and the preponderance of evidence was that it had been.

Had plaintiff been a tenant of the house, defendant's duty would have been that declared by this court in Gillvon v. Reilly, 50 N. J. Law, 26, 11 Atl. 481, viz. to take reasonable care to have the halls and stairways fit for use by the tenant in going to and coming from her part of the house. The court by its instructions in this case, imposed upon the landlord a like duty in favor of one who was not a tenant, but was a visitor of a tenant. No contest has been made over the propriety of this ruling of the court, and very properly. The reasons upon which the rule of duty rests in one case establish a like rule in the other. When houses are rented for dwellings which can only be reached by the use of a common passage, the necessity of such use for the beneficial enjoyment of the thing demised establishes a right to such use, and imposes an obligation upon the landlord to take reasonable care to have and maintain the passage safe for such use. But the use of such rooms for dwellings equally necessitates the use of the passage by tradesmen in delivering goods, by persons having other business with the occupant or by those who visit him for social reasons. With respect therefore, to all persons visiting such a tenant upon any lawful occasion, the duty of the landlord is similar to that which he owes to the tenant. Miller v. Hancock [1893] 2 Q. B. 177; Hilsenbeck v. Guhring, 131 N. Y, 674, 30 N. E. 580.

At the trial, the claim of plaintiff was that defendant was guilty of a breach of the duty he owed her in two respects: (1) Because the stairway was improperly constructed, and dangerous; and (2) because there was no light in the lower hall at the time of...