Roderick v. Kondazian
Decision Date | 02 March 1927 |
Citation | 258 Mass. 477 |
Parties | MARY RODERICK v. MINAS KONDAZIAN. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
December 10, 1926.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, CROSBYPIERCE, & SANDERSON, JJ.
Landlord and Tenant, Repairs.Negligence, Of one owning or controlling real estate.
A landlord, who has agreed with a tenant, as a part of the contract of hiring, to keep the premises in first class condition, to have his janitor enter at any time to see what repairs were needed and to take care of everything, leaving nothing for the tenant to do, cannot be found liable in an action against him by a member of the tenant's household for injuries resulting from a fall of a portion of a ceiling in the tenant's premises, if all the evidence as to the ceiling came from the tenant and was, in substance, that before the accident he never noticed anything wrong with it or anything to indicate that it was in danger of falling, that one standing in the room could not tell that the ceiling would be likely to fall, and that there was nothing about it to disturb the tenant, the plaintiff, or the janitor.
TORT OR CONTRACT.Writ dated May 1, 1922.In the Superior Court, the action was tried before Keating, J. Material evidence is stated in the opinion.The judge ordered a verdict for the defendant and reported the action to this court for determination.
L.A. Pearlmutter for the plaintiff.W.I. Badger, for the defendant.
This is an action of contract or tort to recover damages for personal injuries, sustained by the plaintiff when a portion of a ceiling fell in a room of an apartment which had been hired from the defendant by her son, of whose household she was a member.The judge allowed the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and reported the case to ...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Sordillo v. Fradkin
...the rule is laid down that a landlord is bound to use reasonable care (Kirby v. Tirrell, 236 Mass. 170, 128 N. E. 28;Roderick v. Kondazian, 258 Mass. 477, 155 N. E. 637;Leslie v. Glazer, 273 Mass. 221, 223, 173 N. E. 413) to maintain the parts of the premises within his control in a conditi......
-
Sordillo v. Fradkin
... ... 575. When the rule is laid down ... that a landlord is bound to use reasonable care (Kirby v ... Tirrell, 236 Mass. 170; Roderick v. Kondazian, ... 258 Mass. 477; Leslie v. Glazer, 273 Mass. 221 , ... 223), to maintain the parts of the premises within his ... control in a ... ...
-
Spinney v. R.M. Bradley & Co.
...N.E.2d 18;Shwartz v. Feinberg, 306 Mass. 331, 28 N.E.2d 249. Compare Wadleigh v. Bumford, 229 Mass. 122, 118 N.E. 265;Roderick v. Kondazian, 258 Mass. 477, 155 N.E. 637. Exceptions ...
-
Tarle v. Park Drive Realty, Inc.
...81 N.E. 191), the landlord did not in any event become an insurer against their presence. Negligence must be shown. Roderick v. Kondazian, 258 Mass. 477, 155 N.E. 637;Chambers v. Durling, 306 Mass. 327, 331, 28 N.E.2d 459. There was no evidence of the defendant's negligence. He made efforts......