Miller v. Mutual Mortg. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 November 1930
• Citation: 152 A. 154,112 Conn. 303
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MILLER v. MUTUAL MORTGAGE CO.

152 A. 154

112 Conn. 303

MILLER v. MUTUAL MORTGAGE CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 7, 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Newell-Jennings, Judge.

Action by Clara Miller against the Mutual Mortgage Company to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendant landlord. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

No error.

John T. Robinson, of Hartford, for appellant.

Ralph O. Wells, of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

HINMAN, J.

The defendant owned a house, in Hartford, containing two apartments, one located upon the first floor and one upon the second. The first floor was occupied by the plaintiff and her family, and the second by a family named Smith, each under oral month to month lease, making no specific mention of the stairway here in question. Each of the two apartments had a separate front entrance, but there was a common rear door opening onto a landing, from which a flight of steps led up to a hall on the level of the first floor apartment, which hall was used by the tenants of both apartments. From this, stairs led up to a landing on a level with the second floor apartment. There were no rooms on the third floor and no stairs leading to a third floor. The tenants of the first floor apartment had no occasion to use the stairs leading to the second floor for any purpose other than to visit tenants of that floor, as any member of the public might do. A light on the first floor landing was controlled by a switch within the first floor apartment, and one on the second floor landing by a switch in the apartment of the second floor tenants. The second floor tenants cleaned the stairs. The landlord retained no keys to any part of the house. Repairs were made by a representative of the defendant, upon reasonably request of the tenants.

On the evening of September 22, 1929, the plaintiff went from her apartment to visit Mrs. Smith on the second floor, and, while returning down the stairway, fell and was injured. At some unknown date prior to the acquisition of the property by the defendant, a piece of the nosing of the projecting tread of an intermediate landing in the flight of stairs apparently had broken off and had been replaced and fastened with brads. This piece gave way beneath the plaintiff's foot, and caused her to fall. No tenant had requested any repair of this stair or notified the defendant of any defect therein, and neither the defendant nor any of the tenants had knowledge of the defect.

The determinative conclusions reached by the trial court from the facts found, as above stated, were that the stairway was not a common approach, but an appurtenance to the second floor tenement and in control of the tenants thereof, that no portion of it was retained in the control of the landlord and the latter was under no duty to inspect it or make any repairs thereto, in the absence of a request by the tenants; hence the defendant was not guilty of negligence.

We have been unable to grant any of the requested corrections of the findings which would materially affect the soundness of these conclusions, which the appellant attacks as not supported by the subordinate facts. The question whether this stairway was included in the lease of the second floor apartment as an...