Porter v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 12 December 1927
• Citation: 107 Conn. 68,139 A. 649
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PORTER ET AL. v. TAYLOR.

139 A. 649

107 Conn. 68

PORTER ET AL. v. TAYLOR.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 12, 1927

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Frederick W Huxford, Judge.

Action by John E. Porter and others, landlords, against F. A Taylor, tenant, to recover damages for injury to leased premises alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendant. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Error and new trial ordered, limited to assessment of damages.

William J. Kiernan, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Robert E. De Forest and Charles A. Hopwood, both of Bridgeport, for appellees.

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

BANKS J.

The plaintiffs seek recovery in this action for damage to their premises which they allege was caused by the negligence of the defendant, their tenant, in leaving the house in the winter season without heat as a result of which the water in the plumbing and heating fixtures froze causing damage to this equipment and to the ceilings and floors of the house. The plaintiffs offered proof of bills incurred by them for the repair of the plumbing and heating equipment and redecorating the house which amounted to $464.63, and also of a loss of rental of the house for four months at $75 a month amounting to $300, making a total of $764.63, and the jury rendered a verdict in their favor for this exact amount.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict, making the claim as to the bills for repairs that plaintiff failed to prove that these repairs were due solely to the freezing of the water pipes, and as to the loss of rental that plaintiffs failed to prove that the premises could not have been made tenantable in less than four months, and further failed to prove that the reasonable rental value of the premises was $75 a month. As to the first claim, it is sufficient to point out that Mrs. Greening, who had charge of the property for the plaintiffs, testified that all of the repairs and redecorating that she had done was due to the freezing of the water pipes, in which she was corroborated by the plumber who made the repairs to the heating and plumbing system. Mrs. Greening also testified that she had a tenant for the house within a month after the freezing, but that it was not in a condition to rent for four months, the delay in completing the repairs being due to the inability of the plumber to get parts for the radiators any sooner, which the plumber confirmed. The undisputed fact that the premises had been rented for several months for $75 a month was sufficient evidence to go to the jury of its fair rental value. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to set aside the verdict.

The additional appeal assigns errors in the court's charge. One of the issues in the case was that of tenancy, the defendant claiming that at the time of the damage to the house he had surrendered his lease of the premises and was no longer a tenant of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs offered evidence to prove that the defendant moved out of the house on January 28th, but did not give up possession of the premises nor surrender the key until February 2d, and that the freezing of the water pipes occurred on the night of January 28th. The court in its charge said, " If you should find, and there is no evidence to contradict it, that the defendant retained...