Harenburg v. August, 58.

• Citation: 194 A. 152,119 N.J.L. 83
• Decision Date: 22 September 1937
• Docket Number: No. 58.,58.
• Parties: HARENBURG v. AUGUST.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

194 A. 152
119 N.J.L. 83

HARENBURG
v.
AUGUST.

No. 58.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

September 22, 1937.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In the absence of express agreement, there is no obligation upon a landlord to make repairs or alterations to the interior of demised premises.

2. Where landlord at the time of letting premises agreed to change the location of a radiator therein, but did not do so, and 14 months later a new agreement of letting was entered into, at a reduced rental, at which time there was no request or promise to make the alteration, held the landlord was not liable for injuries to the tenant alleged to have been caused by the location of the radiator.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.

Action by Hazel Harenburg against Nathan August. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Precker & Precker and Gerald T. Foley, all of Newark, for appellant. Skeffington & Walker, of Newark, for respondent.

DONGES, Justice.

Defendant was the owner of an apartment house in the city of Newark. Plaintiff was a tenant therein from November 1, 1928, until July 1, 1932, at which time she leased another apartment in the same building under a monthly tenancy at $55 a month. Plaintiff testified that she inspected the new apartment before leasing it and objected to the location of a radiator in the bathroom; that she was 5 feet 10% inches in height and weighed about 280 pounds, and feared injury because the radiator was, in her opinion, too close to the toilet; that the defendant was present with the superintendent of the building when she inspected the apartment and agreed to change the location of the radiator, which promise was repeated several times after she moved in, but never performed. In September, 1933, the letting was changed from one at $55 a month to one at $50 a month. At this time nothing was said about changing the location of the radiator. There was a request about painting the kitchen, which was done. On or about November 20, 1933, plaintiff was burned while using the toilet, such burns being on the outside of the left foot from.

194 A. 153

the small toe to the middle of the arch, and on the sole. For these injuries plaintiff sued, alleging that defendant agreed to change the location of the radiator, but failed to do so. At the trial, the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant, from which this appeal is taken.

In the absence of a continuing nuisance or of an express contract...