Page v. Ginsberg
| Decision Date | 21 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 45382 |
| Citation | 345 Ill.App. 68,102 N.E.2d 165 |
| Parties | PAGE et al. v. GINSBERG. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Hubbard, Hubbard & Dorgan, Chicago, for appellant.
Matthew Steinberg, Fred Polacek, Chicago, Abraham Miller, Chicago, of counsel, for appellees.
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action for personal injuries to the wife, and the husband for loss of her services, resulting from alleged negligence of defendant in failing to repair a dangerous condition of a staircase in the premises owned by defendant and used by plaintiffs as tenants in said building. The jury returned a verdict for $5,000 in favor of the wife and $1 for the husband. The jury also answered certain interrogatories in the affirmative. Judgments were entered upon said verdicts, from which defendant appeals.
Defendant owned a 2-story building in the City of Chicago, the lower floor being occupied by a barber shop and the upper floor a small apartment, which was rented to plaintiff for $9 a month. The only ingress to and egress from the apartment was by means of a wooden staircase of about twelve steps, to a landing adjoining the entrance to the apartment. The staircase was used only by the plaintiffs and not by the other tenant.
There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether defendant or the occupant of the barber shop, who claims to have had the key and was authorized to show the apartment to plaintiffs, rented it to them. The barber claims he rented it in the latter part of April, and plaintiffs moved in on the Sunday following, May 1, 1946. On the other hand, plaintiff husband testified that it was in March he inquired about the apartment and met defendant on the premises; that defendant showed him the apartment; that defendant told him the flat had been renting for $9 a month, but that he no longer could afford to rent it for that price and wanted $300 to put in necessary repairs on the inside and outside of the apartment; that he told defendant he did not have that much money with him, that he would have to borrow it; that the next afternoon, in the latter part of March, 1946, he gave defendant $125; that defendant then promised to fix the staircase leading to the apartment in question and admitted to plaintiff that the staircase needed repairs, and that the staircase was shaky and resting against the brick wall of the building.
Plaintiff further testified that a month later some janitor employed by defendant drove some nails into the wooden stairs; that defendant continued to promise to repair the staircase; that he moved in about April 1st; that defendant made no repairs inside or outside of the apartment or to the staircase in question; that some time later plaintiff against saw defendant; that defendant demanded the rest of the money, and he gave him $90, which made a total of $215 he had given defendant; that he had no receipt from defendant for either payment; and that at the time the $90 payment was made, defendant promised to put the staircase in good repair.
Plaintiff wife testified she was present when the $90 was paid; that she called his attention to the wobbly condition of the staircase; that some of the boards were loose; that he then promised to repair the staircase; that nothing was done by defendant in the way of repairs up to the time of the accident to plaintiff wife on April 26, 1947. She was walking down the staircase on her way to do some shopping, when one of the boards gave way. She fell and sustained injuries. She was then in a pregnant condition. The extent of her injuries will not be discussed, since no point is made that the verdicts are excessive.
Defendant contends that the staircase being under the control of the tenant, defendant is not liable for failure to maintain the staircase in a good state of repair, Wagner v. Kepler, 342 Ill.App. 136, 95 N.E.2d 533, and cases there cited; and that even if defendant covenanted to repair the premises, he would not be liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Faber v. Creswick
...131 Conn. 557, 41 A.2d 251 (Sup.Ct.Err.1945); Alaimo v. DuPont, 4 Ill.App.2d 85, 123 N.E.2d 583 (App.Ct.1955); Page v. Ginsberg, 345 Ill.App. 68, 102 N.E.2d 165 (App.Ct.1951); Miles v. Boston, R.B. & L.R. Co., 274 Mass. 87, 174 N.E. 200, 202 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1931); Annotation, 163 A.L.R., supra ......
-
Moldenhauer v. Krynski
...where the landlord has breached his contractual duty to repair. See Alaimo v. Du Pont, 4 Ill.App.2d 85, 123 N.E.2d 583; Page v. Ginsberg, 345 Ill.App. 68, 102 N.E.2d 165. As stated in the landmark case of Cromwell v. Allen, 151 Ill.App. 404, the reason for the rule that the landlord is gene......
- People ex rel. Jackson & Morris v. Smuczynski