Johnson v. Passmore
| Decision Date | 31 May 1991 |
| Citation | 581 So.2d 830 |
| Parties | Juanita JOHNSON v. James C. PASSMORE and Nancy Passmore. 89-1598. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
K. Stephen Jackson, Birmingham, for appellant.
James B. Kierce, Jr. of Stone, Patton, Kierce & Freeman, Bessemer, for appellees.
Juanita Johnson appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, James Passmore and Nancy Passmore, in a negligence action. The only question presented is whether Johnson presented substantial evidence tending to show that the Passmores breached a duty owed to Johnson and thereby caused her injury.
On November 1, 1987, Johnson was visiting her daughter and son-in-law at the house they were renting from the Passmores. As Johnson prepared to leave the house and descend a flight of seven stairs that led from the front porch to the ground, her granddaughter ran up the stairs and bumped into her. Johnson lost her balance and, because there was no handrail on the stairs, fell from the top stair to the ground, a distance of approximately five feet. In February 1989 Johnson filed a complaint against the Passmores, alleging that they had undertaken a duty to repair the house and had performed that duty negligently. She also alleged, in the alternative, that the Passmores had negligently removed the handrail and failed to warn her of the dangerous condition created by its removal.
The Passmores moved for a summary judgment. Attached to their motion was James Passmore's affidavit, in which he stated that there was a railing on the stairs when he leased the house to Johnson's son-in-law; that he had an oral lease agreement with Johnson's son-in-law, who had been an employee of the Passmores, wherein the son-in-law agreed to make repairs on the house, initially in lieu of rent; that the Passmores never agreed to repair the house; and that the son-in-law took the handrail down and had refused to replace it, despite the Passmores' requests.
In response to that motion, Johnson submitted a brief that contained references to James Passmore's deposition. She alleged that the Passmores had assumed a duty to repair the house by accepting her son-in-law's services in lieu of rent; by asking him to replace the handrail; and by supplying materials for his use in repairing the house. She also argued that by renting the house to her son-in-law while he was in their employ, and allowing him to exchange his services in repairing the house for his first few months' rent, the Passmores had, in effect, ordered their agent to repair the house and that they were vicariously liable for his negligent repair, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The trial court granted the Passmores' motion. Johnson appeals from the summary judgment, raising the same arguments that she presented at trial.
As a general rule, a landlord is not liable in tort for injuries to his tenants that are caused by a defect in the leased premises, unless the injury-causing defect existed at the time of the letting, was known to the landlord, and was concealed from the tenant. Murphy v. Hendrix, 500 So.2d 8 (Ala.1986); Cohran v. Boothby Realty Co., 379 So.2d 561 (Ala.1980); Uhlig v. Moore, 265 Ala. 646, 93 So.2d 490 (1957). A tenant's guests enter the leased premises under the tenant's title, and thus have no better right against the landlord than does the tenant. Sanders v. Vincent, 367 So.2d 943 (Ala.1978); Uhlig.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the tenant, Johnson's son-in-law, removed the handrail without the Passmores' authorization or prior knowledge and that he had refused to reinstall it despite James Passmore's request that he do so. Because he created the hazardous condition and refused to repair it, Johnson's son-in-law would not have had a right of action against the Passmores if he had been injured because of the absence of the handrail. That defect did not exist at the time of the letting, and it clearly was not concealed from the tenant. Cohran, supra; Uhlig, supra. Therefore, pursuant to the rule governing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Lawyers Sur. Corp.
...to contradict the movant's prima facie showing, the trial court is compelled to view the evidence as uncontradicted. Johnson v. Passmore, 581 So.2d 830, 832 (Ala.1991); Golden Gulf, Inc. v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 565 So.2d 114 (Ala.1990); Lee v. Tolleson, 502 So.2d 354, 355 (Ala.1987); Eason v......
-
Avon-Avalon, Inc. v. Collins, AVON-AVALO
...defect existed at the time of the letting, was known to the landlord, and was concealed from the tenant." Johnson v. Passmore, 581 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala.1991). The defendants argue that Owens's testimony concerning Perdue's December 26 and December 31 telephone calls to the Leavall Company is......
-
Garner v. Pugh
...studied the record in this case, and we conclude that Pugh's summary judgment is due to be affirmed on the authority of Johnson v. Passmore, 581 So.2d 830 (Ala.1991); Hebert v. Greene County Housing Authority, 558 So.2d 926 (Ala.1990); and Sanders v. Vincent, 367 So.2d 943 AFFIRMED. HORNSBY......
-
Martin v. Ross
...were palpably erroneous, that is, that the sewage system was not within the scope of the term "structural members." In Johnson v. Passmore, 581 So.2d 830 (Ala.1991), our supreme court reaffirmed the general rule that "covenants to repair will not be implied, and the burden is on the tenant ......