Magnotti v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 02 March 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-162,77-162
• Citation: 57 Ill.App.3d 1000,373 N.E.2d 801,15 Ill.Dec. 455
• Parties: , 15 Ill.Dec. 455 Charles MAGNOTTI and Helen Magnotti, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Kyle Magnotti, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. Goffrey HUGHES, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 801

373 N.E.2d 801

57 Ill.App.3d 1000, 15 Ill.Dec. 455

Charles MAGNOTTI and Helen Magnotti, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Kyle Magnotti Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. Goffrey HUGHES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 77-162.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

March 2, 1978.

Edward J. Kionka, Carbondale, Freddy L. Shapiro, Murphysboro, for plaintiffs-appellants.

James B. Bleyer, Marion, for defendant-appellee.

KARNS, Justice.

Charles and Helen Magnotti, individually and as administrators of the estate of their daughter, Kyle Magnotti, appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County dismissing their wrongful death action against Goffrey Hughes. The action was commenced to recover damages for the wrongful death of the deceased, an overnight social guest of defendant's lessee. She died in a fire of undetermined origin in a small house owned by Hughes and leased as a single unit dwelling to deceased's host. Plaintiffs base their allegation of the landlord's liability on the following theories: negligent breach of a statutory duty created by "an act relating to the investigation and prevention of fire (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 1271/2, par. 9); negligent breach of a general duty of due care; negligence in failing to maintain the structural parts of the premises in a reasonably safe condition; willful and wanton misconduct; and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The complaint was dismissed on motion for failure to state a cause of action.

The complaint alleged that defendant leased the structure, described as one of three "plywood and two-by-four" vacation or hunting cabins, to one Diane Stringham, a student at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois on a month-to-month basis at a rental of $85. It was alleged and it likewise appears from photographs attached to the complaint, that each rental unit was connected to the one adjoining by a roof, forming an open breezeway at the front entrance of each unit. Plaintiffs' decedent was described as a holiday social guest of the tenant.

The complaint further alleged that just prior to 8:00 A.M. on November 24, 1973, a fire of undetermined origin started inside the structure; that the deceased awakened but that the fire spread quickly, particularly around the only exit, preventing her escape or rescue and that she lost her life in this tragic accident.

Count I of the complaint alleged that while the defendant-landlord owed the tenant and the deceased a duty to make the structure reasonably safe for habitation, he leased to the tenant a residence knowing the same was unreasonably dangerous to the occupants in the event of fire. Then followed more specific allegations of negligence; namely, that the plywood structure, being composed largely of glue, was unreasonably dangerous as it "had an unacceptably high flame spread rate"; that there was only one operable door or exit; that the defendant-landlord failed to furnish fire extinguishers; that defendant failed to insulate the structure and provide "double wall" construction so as to retard the rapid spread of fire; that defendant failed to equip the structure with a smoke alarm or other warning device knowing that the structure was unusually susceptible to fire and, therefore, particularly dangerous to sleeping occupants; and that because of these defects and dangerous conditions the structure was especially liable to fire and to cause injury in the event of fire, and that defendant kept and maintained inflammable conditions on the premises all in violation of section 9 of chapter 1271/2, Ill.Rev.Stat. Count II was to recover funeral expenses based on the same allegations of negligence and violation of statutory duty.

Count III, repeating the same specific allegations alleged that the defendant landlord as owner had retained custody and control over "the permanent structural components of the structure in question, such as the walls, ceiling, floors, windows and door" and, therefore, had the duty to maintain these portions of the premises in a reasonably safe condition but failed to do so alleging specifically the same allegations common to all the counts.

Other counts, repeating these same specific factual allegations, alleged that defendant was guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct. Count VII was based on a breach of an alleged warranty of habitability. Count VIII was to recover funeral expenses based on a breach of the alleged warranty of habitability.

Defendant's motion to dismiss set forth that none of the matters alleged in the complaint contained allegations of latent defects existing at the time of leasing which were known to defendant or defects or conditions which the deceased could not have discovered by reasonable examination of the premises.

We believe that the theories of recovery pleaded in this complaint, with two exceptions, are governed by our holding in Dapkunas v. Cagle, 42 Ill.App.3d 644, 1 Ill.Dec. 387, 356 N.E.2d 575 (5th Dist. 1976), leave to appeal denied. No purpose will be served by a lengthy discussion of the issues of that case; appellants urge us to overrule Dapkunas, but we decline to do so.

As we noted in Dapkunas, subject to few exceptions, a landlord is not liable for injuries to a tenant, or a tenant's invited guest, who has the same status as the tenant, (Fugate v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 12 Ill.App.3d 656, 299 N.E.2d 108 (1st Dist. 1973)) occurring on premises leased to a tenant and under his control.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 361 (1965) states that a lessor of land who retains under his control any part thereof which is necessary to the safe use of the part leased "is subject to liability to his lessee and others lawfully upon the land with the consent of the lessee * * * for physical harm caused by a dangerous condition upon that part of the land retained in the lessor's control * * *." The usual example of the application of this rule is for injuries to the tenant or others caused by defects in common entrances or passageways in multiple unit dwellings. Plaintiff, under the authority of Campbell v. Harrison, 16 Ill.App.3d 570, 306 N.E.2d 643 (1st Dist. 1973) would have us apply this rule here upon plaintiff's allegation that the defendant, as landlord, retained control over the structural parts of this house, such as the walls, ceiling, floor, windows and door. In the first place, the only defects alleged in these parts of the structure was that they were composed of wood or plywood and were susceptible to destruction by fire. Secondly we do not believe Campbell can be read so broadly. There a tenant in a multiple unit apartment building was injured when struck by plaster which fell from the living room ceiling which the landlord had refused to allow her to repair. The court held that a complaint, alleging these facts, stated a cause of...