Rowan v Amoskbag Mfg. Co.

• Citation: 109 A. 561
• Parties: ROWAN v AMOSKBAG MFG. CO.
• Decision Date: 06 April 1920
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

109 A. 561

ROWANvAMOSKBAG MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

April 6, 1920.

Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Allen, Judge.

Action by Mary Rowan against the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, nonsuit was ordered, and plaintiff excepted, the case being transferred. Exceptions overruled.

Doyle & Lucier, of Nashua, for plaintiff.

Louis A. Thorp and Warren, Howe & Wilson, all of Manchester, for defendant.

PLUMMER, J. The plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant, and had occupied the tenement some nine years when the defendant installed a bathtub in it. This bathtub, which was about 4 feet long and 2 feet wide, was set in a corner of the room, close up to the west and north walls and within an inch therefrom. In the west wall of the room, and directly over the tub, was a large window. The evidence tended to prove that after the installation of the tub the defendants made and put in the tenement a wooden cover 51 inches long and 27 inches wide, designed and intended to serve as a cover for the tub; that the cover was made of pine boards held in place by three cleats which were fastened to the boards with screws; that the cleats were fastened across the boards and were so long that they rested upon the sides of the tub, and did not fit inside the upper rim of the tub; that the plaintiff about a month after the cover was installed stood upon it to wash the window over the tub; that when she had finished this task she went to the north wall, and attempted to get down on the floor by stepping down from the cover, with the intention of sitting on the edge of it; that in so doing the cover, which projected beyond the edge of the tub, tipped, letting the plaintiff fall to the floor and Injuring her.

Although, in the absence of any warranty, deceit, or fraud on the part of the defendants, they would not be liable for injuries caused by any defects in their premises (Towne v. Thompson, 68 N. H. 317, 44 Atl. 492, 46 L. R. A. 748; Clark v. Sharpe, 76 N. H. 446, 83 Atl. 1090, 41 L. R. A. [N. S.] 47), still, if the defendants made repairs after the plaintiff's tenancy began, and were negligent in so doing, they would be responsible for any injuries suffered by the plaintiff by reason of such negligence, unless the injuries were occasioned by her fault. 16 R. C. L. 1045, and cases there cited. The defendants are not liable in this action unless they were negligent in the construction or installation of the bathtub cover, and the accident was caused thereby. The cover was designed and intended...