Reilly v. Feldman

• Decision Date: 23 July 1927
• Docket Number: No. 77.,77.
• Citation: 138 A. 307
• Parties: REILLY v. FELDMAN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

138 A. 307

REILLY

v. FELDMAN.

No. 77.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 23, 1927.

Suit by Rose T. Reilly against Rose Feldman. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial ordered. Rule made absolute.

Argued January term, 1927, before GUMMERE, C. J., and TRENCHARD, J.

Samuel P. Hagerman, of Blackwood, for the rule.

Albert S. Woodruff, of Camden, opposed.

GUMMERE, C. J. This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for personal injuries received by her under the following circumstances:

The defendant was the owner of certain premises located on North Tenth street, in the city of Camden. She purchased them subject to a lease held by a man named Mascher. On the 26th of February, 1924, the plaintiff called upon Mrs. Mascher, who was then occupying the premises with her husband, under the lease held by him. As she was coming out of the house and down the steps of the porch, one of the boards of the porch broke, because of its rotten condition, causing her to fall and receive the injuries which are the subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiff's claim was and is that the defendant is legally responsible for the injuries resulting to her from that fall, and that she is entitled to recover from her compensation therefor. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $900. The defendant thereupon applied for and obtained a rule to show cause why this verdict should not be set aside and a new trial ordered.

The facts above recited do not impose any liability upon the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries received. In the case of Siggins v. McGill, 72 N. J. Law, 263, 62 A. 411, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 316, 111 Am. St. Rep. 666, the Court of Errors and Appeals declared that in this state it is established as a general rule that the landlord is not liable for injuries sustained by a tenant or his family or guests by reason of the ruinous condition of the premises demised, there being in the letting of a house or lands no implied contract or condition that the premises are or shall be fit and suitable for the use of the tenants. This rule, as is pointed out in the opinion referred to, is not universal in its application, but the facts in the present case do not bring it within the exception to the rule therein indicated.

In addition to the facts already recited, there was testimony submitted showing that shortly before the...