Leslie v. Glazer
| Decision Date | 25 November 1930 |
| Citation | 273 Mass. 221,173 N.E. 413 |
| Parties | LESLIE v. GLAZER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Philip J. O'Connell, Judge.
Action by Mary Leslie against Solomon Glazer. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Edward A. Ryan, of Worcester, for plaintiff.
J. W. Ceaty, of Worcester, for defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff by falling down a flight of stairs in the common hallway of an apartment house under the control of the defendant. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. To this direction the plaintiff excepted.
The plaintiff testified that on October 26, 1927, she visited a friend who was a tenant in an apartment on the third floor of the building; that after leaving that apartment and while descending to the first floor, something caught her foot on the ‘first step of the eighth stairway,’ causing her to be thrown down the stairs; that her foot was caught by nails; that She further testified that she had previously been a tenant in the apartment and that when she moved ‘There was a guard, brass rod, on the edge of the step’ where she fell. The defendant was called as a witness and testified that when he bought the property the steps were covered by rubber matting; that there was brass nosing on some of the steps but that there was none on the step from which the plaintiff fell. He further testified in substance that all the steps on the stairway were in good condition and that no nails protruded from them.
[1] It is a familiar rule that invitees, guests and members of the family of a lessee have no greater rights than the lessee to recover for injuries caused by a defective condition of the leased premises. Domenicis v. Fleisher, 195 Mass. 281, 81 N. E. 191;Peaks v. Cobb, 197 Mass. 554, 83 N. E. 1106;Shea v. McEvoy, 220 Mass. 239, 107 N. E. 945;Fitzsimmons v. Hale, 220 Mass. 461, 107 N. E. 929, and cases cited; Angevine v. Hewitson, 235 Mass. 126, 129, 126 N. E. 425.
It is equally plain that the lessor was obliged at all times to use reasonable care to see that the stairway was kept in as good repair as it was in or appeared to be in at the time the tenancy began. Andrews v. Williamson, 193 Mass. 92, 78 N. E. 737,118 Am. St. Rep. 452.
The burden of proof rested upon the plaintiff to show that, if the stairway was defective, the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, knew or ought to have known of the defect long enough before the plaintiff was injured to have repaired or remedied it. Goldsmith v. Ricles (Mass.) 172 N. E. 526.
[4] There was no evidence to show to what extent the nails protruded above the tread of the stairway. There was no evidence from their appearance indicative of age at the time of the accident. Blake v. John F. Johnston Co., 213 Mass. 143, 99 N. E. 950. If it be assumed that nails protruding above the level of the step caused the plaintiff to fall, and for that reason the step was defective, still there was no evidence as to how long that condition had existed, or that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the condition long enough before the accident to have made the necessary repairs. The nails may have protruded above the steps after the defendant examined them.
The case at bar is governed by Blake v. John F. Johnston Co., supra, and by Johnson v. Fainstein, 219 Mass. 537, 107 N. E. 351. The latter case held that a landlord was not liable to a tenant for personal injuries caused by the tenant's foot coming in contact with the tops of two nails projecting above the tread of a common stairway even if one of the nails projected above the surface three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cushing v. Jolles
... ... Cotting, 231 Mass. 51, 58-61, 120 N.E ... 365. The case is distinguishable from Kirby v ... Tirrell, 236 Mass. 170, 128 N.E. 28, and Leslie v ... Glazer, 273 Mass. 221, 173 N.E. 413. The counterweight ... was in plain view of the defendant and its servants. It might ... have been ... ...
-
Chelefou v. Springfield Inst. for Sav.
...or thereafter (Conahan v. Fisher, 233 Mass. 234, 124 N.E. 13;Condon v. Winn, 252 Mass. 146, 148, 147 N.E. 562; see Leslie v. Glazer, 273 Mass. 221, 223, 173 N.E. 413), in the absence of a hidden defect at the time of the letting actually known to the landlord and not disclosed to the tenant......
-
Sordillo v. Fradkin
...use reasonable care (Kirby v. Tirrell, 236 Mass. 170, 128 N. E. 28;Roderick v. Kondazian, 258 Mass. 477, 155 N. E. 637;Leslie v. Glazer, 273 Mass. 221, 223, 173 N. E. 413) to maintain the parts of the premises within his control in a condition as good as that in which they appeared to be, a......
-
Pastrick v. S.S. Kresge Co.
...N. E. 265;Douglas v. Shepard Norwell Co., 217 Mass. 127, 104 N. E. 491;Johnson v. Fainstein, 219 Mass. 537, 107 N. E. 351;Leslie v. Glazer, 273 Mass. 221, 173 N. E. 413;Rosenthal v. Central Garage of Lynn, Inc., 279 Mass. 574, 575, 181 N. E. 660], were not defects the maintenance of which c......