Ross v. Heberling

Decision Date28 April 1952
Citation109 N.E.2d 586,92 Ohio App. 148
Parties, 49 O.O. 281 ROSS v. HEBERLING.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Regardless of the 'handrail statute' (Section 1006, General Code), at common law the owner of an apartment building is under thd duty of exercising ordinary care to keep common stairways in a reasonably safe condition.

2. A landlord maintaining a stairway for his tenants is liable for any injuries to a tenant, the members of his family, employes, guests and invitees arising from the landlord's neglect to keep same in proper repair.

3. Although a landlord may assume that those in authority will protect children and prohibit them from wandering in places where they may be injured, the landlord must anticipate that a child may properly use a common stairway, and whether a landlord as an ordinarily prudent person could have foreseen that children would use a stairway unguarded by an intermediate rail and fall off of such stairway presents a mixed question of law and fact for the jury under appropriate instructions.

Dewey & Dewey, Clyde, for appellant.

Culbert, Hyzer & Culbert, Fremont, for appellee.

FESS, Judge.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment dismissing plaintiff's second amended petition after the sustaining of a demurrer thereto.

Plaintiff, a minor seven years old, brings his action for damages against the defendant as owner of an apartment building on account of the alleged negligent construction of an outside stairway leading from the sidewalk to the second floor on which is located an apartment occupied by plaintiff's uncle, whom plaintiff and his father had visited before his fall. The handrail consisted of an iron pipe, thirty inches above the steps, supported by three upright pipes located at the bottom, middle and top of the stairway, so that there was no guard or barrier between the rail and steps to prevent a child from falling off the stairway. Plaintiff and his father started down the steps, which were covered with ice and snow, and when plaintiff was down about three steps he slipped and fell off the steps between the handrail and steps to the sidewalk below, sustaining the injuries of which he complains. Plaintiff alleges that the stairway was used in common by all defendant's tenants on the second floor and that defendant was in possession and control thereof.

Regardless of whether the socalled 'handrail' statute, Section 1006, General Code, applies to outside stairways (Herbst v. Young Women's Christian Assn., 57 Ohio App. 87, 11 N.E.2d 876. Cf. Goldberg v. Agudath B'Nai Israel Congregation, 66 Ohio App. 379, 34 N.E.2d 73), the settled common-law rule in effect in Ohio requires the owner of an apartment building to exercise ordinary care to keep common stairways in a reasonably safe condition. The rule exacts ordinary care on the part of a landlord to repair defects of which he has actual knowledge, or of which he would know had he exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises in his posession or under his control. Tair v. Rock Investment Co., 139 Ohio St. 629, 631, 41 N.E.2d 867. Where a landlord maintains a stairway for the use of his tenants, he is, in general, liable for any injuries arising from his neglect to keep same in proper repair, and such duty extends not only to his tenant but also to members of his family, employees, guests and invitees. Davies, a Minor, v. Kelley, 112 Ohio St. 122, 146 N.E. 888; 52 C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 417, pp. 39, 58; 32 American Jurisprudence, 561, 567, Sections 688, 691. Cf. Ripple v. Mahoning National Bank, 143 Ohio St. 614, 621, 56 N.E.2d 289.

The petition alleges that the stairway was improperly guarded to protect a small child from falling off the steps. A question of fact is thereby presented for determination by the jury, unless no duty to provide additional guards other than the rail is imposed upon a landlord as a matter of law. It is said that there is no commonlaw duty imposed upon the owner to keep lighted, hallways and stairs used in common by his tenants, Petrey v. Liuzzi, 76 Ohio App. 19, 61 N.E.2d 158; McKinley v. Niederst, 118 Ohio St. 334, 160 N.E. 850, but as indicated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Riley v. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 1973
    ...disrepair. This situation may be contrasted with those authorities cited by appellant and presented in such cases as Ross v. Heberling, 92 Ohio App. 148, 109 N.E.2d 586, involving an unprotected common stairway in the control of the landlord, and Friedl v. Lackman, 136 Ohio St. 110, 23 N.E.......
  • Porter v. Miller
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 1983
    ...N.E.2d 265 [64 O.O.2d 106]; Turoff v. Richman (1944), 76 Ohio App. 83, 61 N.E.2d 486 [31 O.O. 400]; cf. Ross v. Herberling (1952), 92 Ohio App. 148, 150, 109 N.E.2d 586 [49 O.O. 281]. As has been repeatedly "The dangers from natural accumulations of ice and snow are ordinarily so obvious an......
  • Mularski v. Brzuchalski
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 1961
    ...maintain the 'common' means of ingress and egress in a reasonably safe condition for use by tenants of the building. Ross v. Heberling, 92 Ohio App. 148, 109 N.E.2d 586; Rice v. Ziegler, 128 Ohio St. 239, 190 N.E. 560; Tair v. Rock Investment Co., 139 Ohio St. 629, 41 N.E.2d 867; Brown v Cl......
  • Carolyn Laughlin v. Larry Robinson, 91-LW-1044
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • August 23, 1991
    ... ... ordinary care to keep common stairways in a reasonably safe ... condition. The appellants cite to Ross v ... Heberling (1952), 92 Ohio App. 148 for the ... proposition that an owner is also under a duty to exercise ... ordinary care ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT