Ruane v. Doyle

• Decision Date: 26 February 1941
• Citation: 308 Mass. 418,32 N.E.2d 244
• Parties: WILLIAM RUANE v. TIMOTHY DOYLE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

308 Mass. 418

32 N.E.2d 244

WILLIAM RUANE v. TIMOTHY DOYLE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 26, 1941

January 8, 1941.

Present: FIELD, C.

J., DONAHUE LUMMUS, COX, & RONAN, JJ.

Landlord and Tenant, Landlord's liability to tenant, Common stairway. Evidence, Conflicting statements of witness.

Evidence warranted a finding that a landlord of a tenement of three stories retained control of a stairway which led from the second to the third floor and was used both by him and by the tenant on that floor, so that he owed that tenant a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep rubber mats that were fastened to the stairway in the condition with respect to safety in which they were or appeared to be when the tenancy began.

The effect of a witness's testimony was for the jury where, on cross examination, he testified that he would say that a previous written statement by him contradictory of his testimony on direct examination

"finally, last and for all . . . correctly sets forth the truth," but on redirect examination he again testified substantially as he had on direct examination.

TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated March 10, 1938. In the Superior Court the action was tried before Giles, J.

R. Marks, for the plaintiff.

E. R. Langenbach (R.

Maguire with him,) for the defendant.

COX, J. The plaintiff, as tenant at will, occupied the third story apartment of a three-family house owned by the defendant. The defendant testified that the front stairway led to a landing just outside the door of the plaintiff's apartment, and just above this landing there was a skylight in the roof, "which skylight existed for the purpose of throwing light down onto the front stairway." At some time during the plaintiff's tenancy, the defendant repaired this skylight and the roof and, in order to do so, it was necessary to place ladders and erect a staging on the landing. There was no other way of reaching the roof through the interior. Although that part of the stairway leading from the second to the third floor was a continuation of the front stairway, it was not used by the tenants of the lower apartments. At or about the time when the tenancy began, and during its whole period, all of the treads of the steps were partly covered by rubber mats nailed or screwed to the tops and folded over the edge onto the risers to which they were also nailed or screwed. He further testified that he had control of the exterior of the house and the entrances, and at various times during the plaintiff's tenancy he had made repairs in the house, but not in the hall or stairway area leading from the second floor to the third, and that the tenants on the first and second floors used so much of the stairway as extended to the second floor.

The jury could have found that some weeks prior to the plaintiff's injury he observed that the mat on the top step of the stairway was loose, so that it tended to "buckle" over onto the riser and to slide when stepped upon. About a month before the injury, the plaintiff told the defendant about the condition of the mat, and the latter said that he was going to fix it; that he was going to fix the whole hall and to have the whole of it papered "right down." When the plaintiff came home from work, he observed that the mat was "put back in place; it was pushed over like that (indicating); put back in place, and was nailed down, nailed or screwed." Thereafter the mat again became loose and slid or "buckled" forward over the riser. On one occasion, at least, the defendant "did something about fixing the mat." On the day of the injury, the plaintiff stepped out of his apartment to the landing for the purpose of putting out an electric light. He was barefooted, and as he stepped forward onto the mat, which was just outside the door, the mat slid forward, causing him to fall down the stairway.

At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial judge allowed the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, subject to the plaintiff's exception, and this presents the only question for decision.

The jury could have found that the defendant retained control of that part of the stairway leading from the second floor to the plaintiff's apartment. It could have been found, as was said in Nash v. Webber, 204 Mass. 419, that "It was at least intended for the common use of the landlord and the tenant of this tenement." (Page 425.) It has been held that the applicable rule of law should not be limited by nice distinctions, and should apply in case of common stairways used by a few as well as in case of those used by many. Flanagan v. Welch, 220 Mass. 186 , 192. See Sullivan v. Northridge, 246 Mass. 382; Cuscuna v. Rood, 289 Mass. 213 . The rule applicable in the case at bar is that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to exercise reasonable care to keep that part of the premises remaining in the landlord's control in the condition with respect to safety in which it was, or to a person of ordinary observation would appear to be, at the time of the letting. Shwartz v. Feinberg, 306 Mass. 331 , 333-334, and cases cited. If the plaintiff is to recover, the burden rests upon him of showing a breach of this duty.

The jury could have found that the condition of the mats at the time of the injury constituted a defect, and that this defect did not, or did not appear to, exist at the time the tenancy began. The defendant himself testified that, at the time of the...