Peterson v. Zaremba

• Decision Date: 27 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 89.,89.
• Citation: 166 A. 527
• Parties: PETERSON et al. v. ZAREMBA.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

166 A. 527

PETERSON et al.

v. ZAREMBA.

No. 89.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

April 27, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Middlesex County.

Suit by Bertha Peterson and by Herman Peterson against Leonard Zaremba. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Judgment in favor of Bertha Peterson affirmed and in favor of Herman Peterson reversed and venire de novo awarded.

Henry K. Golenbock, of Perth Amboy, for appellant.

Lewis S. Jacobson, of Perth Amboy (Thomas L. Hanson, of Perth Amboy, of counsel), for respondents.

LLOYD, Justice.

Appellant was the landlord of the plaintiffs below and was held liable for injuries received by Mrs. Peterson through a fall on a broken stairway used in common with the tenant of another apartment in the building, and which the landlord had promised to repair. The defendant appeals from the judgment and urges as grounds for reversal that a motion for nonsuit should have been granted and that there was error in the admission of certain unproved bills purporting to be for services rendered in the care and cure of Mrs. Peterson.

According to the proofs adduced by the plaintiffs it appeared that in March, 1929, they rented from the defendant the upper flat of a two-family apartment house in Perth Amboy. To the building there was an attic which the plaintiffs were told they could use in common with the family in the lower apartment. Leading to this attic was a common stairway which was then out of repair. The condition of the stairs was called to the attention of the landlord by the plaintiffs at the time of renting and again in June following, and on both occasions the landlord promised to make the necessary repairs. Mrs. Peterson was accustomed to use the attic to dry her laundry and on December 19, 1929, she went up for that purpose. As she came down her shoe caught in one of the broken steps and she was thrown to the bottom of the stairs and received the injuries complained of.

It is claimed that there should have been a nonsuit because the promises to repair were so far distant in point of time from the date of the accident as to relieve the landlord from the responsibility implied in his promise which was given for the last time approximately six months before the accident.

There is no doubt of the rule of law that normally a tenant leasing premises assumes the risk of dangers from their unsafe condition. To this rule, however, there are two important exceptions: One, where the defective...