Miles v. Janvrin

• Decision Date: 06 January 1909
• Citation: 200 Mass. 514,86 N.E. 785
• Parties: MILES v. JANVRIN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

200 Mass. 514

86 N.E. 785

MILES v. JANVRIN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 6, 1909

COUNSEL

James A. McGeough, for plaintiff.

Johnson W. Ramsey and Samuel R. Cutler, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

There was evidence in this case which would warrant the jury in finding that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and that the defendant was negligent, if the relation of the parties in regard to the steps was such that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to look after their condition and provide for their safety during the term of occupation of the plaintiff's husband as a tenant. The steps were a part of the premises let. As a general rule a tenant takes the premises as he finds them, with no duty on the part of the landlord to repair them, or provide for their safety during the term. But if a landlord retains in his possession and control approaches, halls or passages, to be used in common by different tenants, or by himself and tenants, the law implies from these relations a duty on his part to keep them in a safe condition, except as to obvious risks from the mode of construction or other permanent conditions, of which the tenant takes the risk because impliedly there is to be no change in these particulars. In the former decision of this case it was held that a landlord and tenant may enter into relations in regard to a part of the premises let, such that the landlord assumes the duty of looking after their condition, and providing for their safety, for the protection of the tenant. Miles v. Janvrin, 196 Mass. 431, 434 435, 439, 82 N.E. 708, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 378. We believe this to be in accordance with the law as it is generally understood elsewhere. For a recent application of it in New York, see May v. Ennis, 78 A.D. 552, 79 N.Y.S. 896. In such a case the question is not whether an important part of the landlord's undertaking is in form a promise to make repairs, but whether, as a result of the dealings of the parties with each other, they come into relations whereby the landlord undertakes and assumes the duty of looking after the condition of the premises in reference to safety, and of doing what is necessary for that purpose, so that the tenant properly may trust him for the performance of this duty. The control of the premises that the landlord retains in such cases is not a control that takes them out of the possession of the tenant, as the owner of the estate at will or for years, but only control so far as is necessary for making proper inspection and keeping them in a safe condition. The tenant could maintain trespass quare clausum against a stranger coming upon the premises, as well under such an arrangement as if the landlord made no repairs.

The difference between an agreement like that in Tuttle v Gilbert Manufacturing Company, 145 Mass. 169, 13 N.E. 465, or that of a landlord who agrees only to make general repairs during the term, and an agreement of a landlord who promises to take care of the property and keep it in a safe condition and in good repair during the term, is that the former is a simple contract to do certain work, and nothing more. If the landlord fails to do the work, it leaves him liable only for such damages as are the direct result of his breach of contract. This ordinarily would be only the cost of making the repairs. The tenant in such a case is not relieved of the duty of looking out for himself as to the safety of the premises, and refraining from using them, if the use would be perilous by reason of the failure of the landlord to do the work. The latter is a contract which has reference directly to the condition of the premises as to safety, as well as in other particulars. The tenant may rely upon the undertaking in that particular, and assume that the premises will be kept safe for his use. Payment of damages for a personal injury resulting from a breach of such a contract would be directly in the contemplation of the parties in making the contract.

Apart from the question how far the rights of the parties are affected by the...