Manns v. Stein

• Decision Date: 19 September 1968
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 51763
• Citation: 241 N.E.2d 691,99 Ill.App.2d 398
• Parties: Paul MANNS and Theo Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Max E. STEIN, Rosaline Stein, Irving L. Ginsburg, Charles G. Reimann and Lorraine Reimann, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 691

241 N.E.2d 691

99 Ill.App.2d 398

Paul MANNS and Theo Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Max E. STEIN, Rosaline Stein, Irving L. Ginsburg, Charles G Reimann and Lorraine Reimann, Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 51763.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Sept. 19, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1968.

Richard D. Cronin, Rago, Kiely & Kages, Chicago, Joseph B. Lederleitner, Chicago, of counsel, for appellants.

Robert J. Rafferty, Chicago, for appellees.

SCHWARTZ, Justice.

Plaintiffs brought suit to recover for personal injuries sustained when a porch on which they were standing collapsed. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Manns for $15,000 and a verdict in favor of plaintiff Smith for $1500. Judgment was entered thereon and the defendants appeal. They make only two points in their Points and Authorities: (1) that the court erred in refusing an instruction which defined the lessors' responsibility for latent defects on the premises, and (2) that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The facts follow.

On June 30, 1961, the plaintiffs were engaged in moving furniture into the second floor apartment of one Irene Grandberry at 4525 Lake Park Avenue in Chicago. They carried the furniture up the rear stairs of the building and into the apartment in question. They testified that the stairs appeared to be sound and that they did not shake or sway. At about 9:30 p.m., plaintiffs Manns and Smith and two helpers were moving the last piece of furniture, a chifforobe or wardrobe weighing about 150 pounds. When they reached the kitchen door and were preparing to enter, they heard a cracking or popping noise underneath them. The porch collapsed and they were thrown to the ground some twenty feet below. Witnesses testified that the stairways had fallen, the landing was caved in and the porch supports had broken loose.

Edward Dew, who had contracted for purchase of the apartment building, testified that he examined the porch following the accident and found that a supporting beam and two or three bricks had pulled away from the wall. He also examined the beam and found it had begun to determiorate at the point where it fitted into the wall. Theo Smith, one of the plaintiffs, testified that he examined the fallen stairs after the accident and found that the timbers were rotten and the nails rusted 'almost half in two.' Smith also testified that the brickwork was crumbling where the porch timbers joined the building wall.

Defendants are the legal owners of the property. None of them were present at the trial. Interrogatories had been propounded to them prior to the trial however and answers thereto were read to the jury. Defendants Max E. Stein, Rosaline Stein, Charles G. Reimann and Lorraine Reimann were asked:

'Did anyone of the defendants at any time prior to June 30, 1961, make a physical inspection of the rear porch or stairway leading to the second floor apartment * * *?'

The answer of each was 'Unknown.' The same interrogatory was propounded to the defendant Irving Ginsburg and his answer was 'Yes.' He was then asked by a supplemental interrogatory to state, if his answer to that question was in the affirmative, which defendant or defendants made the inspection. To that question his answer was 'Unknown.'

The first point in defendants' brief is that the court erred in refusing an instruction tendered regarding latent defects. It reads as follows:

'If a landlord either knows about an existing defect on the premises which is not readily apparent, or knows of facts and circumstances which would indicate that there is such a defect, then he must tell his tenant about it before the tenant moves in or at the time of the letting. However, a landlord need not warn his tenant about a defect which the tenant could have discovered by a reasonable inspection.'

Plaintiffs point out that the defendants' post trial motion failed to specifically charge error with respect to the ruling on that instruction and accordingly the error was waived.

The Civil Practice Act provides that post trial motions in jury cases must specify with particularity the grounds on which the moving party relies for relief. Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110, § 68.1(2) (1967). The points must be defined in detail and clearly stated and if the motion fails to meet those standards, the error is waived and may not be asserted on appeal. Perez v. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co., 24 Ill.App.2d 204, ...