Holland v. Shively, 910474
| Decision Date | 28 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 910474,910474 |
| Citation | 243 Va. 308,415 S.E.2d 222 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Donna HOLLAND v. James R. SHIVELY. Record |
Arthur P. Strickland, Roanoke (Strickland & Rogers, on briefs), for appellant.
John L. Cooley, Roanoke (Wooten & Hart, on brief), for appellee.
Present: All the Justices
The primary issue that we consider in this appeal is whether the trial court erred by setting aside a jury verdict in favor of a tenant who was injured as a result of her landlord's alleged negligent repair of the premises.
Although the trial court set aside the verdict, we accord the recipient of a jury verdict the benefit of all substantial conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Therefore, we will state the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and if there is any credible evidence in the record which supports the jury's verdict, then we must reinstate that verdict and enter judgment thereon. Rogers v. Marrow, 243 Va. 162, 166-67, 413 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1992).
In November 1988, Donna Holland and her husband, Eldridge Holland, learned that James R. Shively owned a trailer which he desired to lease. They met with Mr. Shively on several occasions and viewed the trailer. They informed him that the trailer was too small to accommodate their needs and they identified certain items in need of repair. Mr. Shively agreed to build an additional room onto the trailer and to correct certain deficiencies, including the front porch which contained rotten wood and had steps which consisted of "loose cinder blocks stacked on top of one another." The Hollands signed a lease with Mr. Shively in November and moved into the trailer in December 1988.
Mr. Shively retained Curtis Pacetti, an independent contractor, to perform the repairs and build the addition to the trailer. In order to construct the addition, it was necessary for Mr. Pacetti to remove the trailer's rear door and steps. Mr. Shively directed Mr. Pacetti to nail plywood board across the opening caused by removal of the rear door. Once the plywood had been nailed across the opening, ingress or egress to the trailer could only be obtained by using the front porch and steps.
On one occasion, Mr. Holland stepped on the porch and fell through it to the ground. Shortly thereafter, he called Mr. Shively, who responded by dismantling a portion of the porch and "haul[ing] it off."
On February 27, 1989, Donna Holland fell and hurt her back when leaving the trailer as she stepped on a cinder block step, which rolled over. As a result of her fall, she incurred medical bills and loss of wages.
Mrs. Holland filed this proceeding against Mr. Shively and alleged, inter alia, that she was injured because of his negligent repair of the steps. The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Holland for $20,000. The trial judge set aside the verdict. We awarded Mrs. Holland an appeal.
This action was tried solely on the issue whether Mr. Shively had entered the premises to make repairs and if so, whether he had exercised ordinary care in doing so. Mrs. Holland argues that the trial court erred by setting aside the verdict of the jury because she presented evidence from which the jury reasonably could have concluded that Mr. Shively was negligent. Mr. Shively argues, however, that he was not negligent but even had he been negligent, Mrs. Holland, as a matter of law, assumed the risk of injury and was guilty of contributory negligence.
We have repeatedly stated the legal principles which govern this dispute.
It has long been the law in Virginia that where a landlord enters leased premises, after delivering possession to the tenant, for the purpose of making repairs, he must use reasonable care in performing the work. In order for the tenant to recover for injuries caused by a defective condition resulting from the repairs, he must show that the repairs were made in a negligent manner.
Oden v. Housing Authority, 203 Va. 638, 640, 125 S.E.2d 843, 845 (1962) (citations omitted). See also Kesler v. Allen, 233 Va. 130, 133, 353 S.E.2d 777, 779-80 (1987); Luedtke v. Phillips, 190 Va. 207, 212, 56 S.E.2d 80, 83 (1949).
We hold that the record contains sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have relied to find that Mr. Shively was negligent. Before Mrs. Holland fell, her husband had fallen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tingler v. Graystone Homes, Inc.
...(1951) (emphasis added).Our decision in Holland v. Shively provides another example of misfeasance while making repairs. See 243 Va. 308, 311, 415 S.E.2d 222 (1992). In that case, a leased trailer had two entrances, a front door with a porch and a back door with steps. See id. at 310, 415 S......
-
Tuel v. Hertz Equip. Rental Corp.
...to do so, then the lessor assumes a duty in tort to make those repairs in a non-negligent fashion. See Holland v. Shively, 243 Va, 308, 311, 415 S.E.2d 222, 224 (Va. 1992); Oden v. Housing Authority, 203 Va. 638, 640, 125 S.E.2d 843, 845 (Va. 1962). This is based on the "ancient learning" i......
-
Federico v. Lincoln Military Hous., LLC
...tenant's exclusive control and possession," a landlord who undertakes repairs and does so negligently may be liable. Holland v. Shively, 243 Va. 308, 415 S.E.2d 222 (1992).Plaintiffs have not set forth any evidence or even argument that any of the disputed areas were outside of their exclus......
-
Thurmond v. PRINCE WILLIAM, INC.
...253 Va. at 241,482 S.E.2d at 826; Waters v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 246 Va. 269, 271, 435 S.E.2d 380, 381 (1993); Holland v. Shively, 243 Va. 308, 311, 415 S.E.2d 222, 224 (1992); see Hoar, 256 Va. at 389-90, 506 S.E.2d at We also emphasize that summary judgment is a procedure that may be emp......