Majewski v. Cantrell, 87-118

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Citation: 737 S.W.2d 649,293 Ark. 360
• Docket Number: No. 87-118,87-118
• Parties: Helen MAJEWSKI, Appellant, v. Leona CANTRELL and Frank B. Henslee, Appellees.
• Decision Date: 19 October 1987

Page 649

737 S.W.2d 649 293 Ark. 360 Helen MAJEWSKI, Appellant,
v.
Leona CANTRELL and Frank B. Henslee, Appellees. No. 87-118. Supreme Court of Arkansas. Oct. 19, 1987.

Page 650

[293 Ark. 361] R.W. Laster, Little Rock, for appellant.

Jones & Petty, Pine Bluff, Everett Martindale, Little Rock, for appellees.

GLAZE, Justice.

Appellant, Helen Majewski, owned a building that she leased to appellee, Frank B. Henslee, who used the building to operate a take-out seafood business and a catfish restaurant. On October 19, 1983, appellee, Leona Cantrell, an employee of Henslee, injured her back by slipping and falling on a wet spot on the restaurant kitchen floor. In December 1984, Cantrell sued Majewski, alleging the wet, slippery floor was caused by rainwater that entered through the building's roof, which Majewski negligently failed to repair. Majewski answered, denying liability, and moved for summary judgment, which was denied; she then filed a cross-complaint against Henslee, alleging he was responsible for repairs and maintenance to the building. Henslee answered and counterclaimed against Majewski. After a two-day trial, the jury found against Majewski, awarding $125,000 in damages to Cantrell and granting $1,250 to Henslee on his counterclaim.

Appellant appeals, arguing the court erred in denying (1) her motion for summary judgment; (2) her motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the testimony; and (3) her motion for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial. She also urges the jury's award to Cantrell was excessive. We affirm.

Majewski's first three points for reversal are premised on her claim that, at the time Cantrell was injured, no lease agreement existed between Henslee and Majewski requiring her to repair and maintain the building's roof. She argues the initial-written lease with Henslee, under which Majewski agreed to make such [293 Ark. 362] repairs, had long expired. Majewski contends that, upon that lease's expiration, Henslee became a month-to-month tenant to whom she owned no duty of repair.

Page 651

Majewski is correct that a lessor, under common-law rule that Arkansas follows, owes no duty of repair of the premises to the lessee; but it is also true that a landlord, who agrees to such repairs, can be held liable for them. See Hurst v. Field, 281 Ark. 106, 661 S.W.2d 393 (1983).

While Majewski argues otherwise on appeal, the proof presented below reflects she had agreed to repair and maintain the roof. Henslee testified such an agreement existed, and Majewski never denied it. ¹ In fact, Majewski admitted she had sent a worker to fix the roof on numerous occasions both before and after Cantrell's fall. Clearly, the record belies Majewski's argument that she had no agreement or duty to repair the tenant's (Henslee's) roof.

Even assuming she entered such an agreement, Majewski contends Cantrell...