Salsman v. Frisch
| Decision Date | 26 June 1931 |
| Citation | 177 N.E. 7,276 Mass. 228 |
| Parties | SALSMAN v. FRISCH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Essex County; Henry T. Lummus, Judge.
Action by Nelsie Salsman against Max Frisch. Verdict was directed for defendant. On report from superior court.
Judgment on the verdict.
T. B. Yeakley and S. H. Hollis, both of Lynn, for plaintiff.
C. C. Petersen, of Boston, for defendant.
The defendant was the owner of a double house, one half of which he rented to a Mrs. Chaplin who occupied it with her lodgers. The house was divided by an up and down partition through the middle. The doorways of the halves were at either end of the double building. The separate doorways and steps leading to them were from twenty to thirty feet apart. The plaintiff, a lodger of Mrs. Chaplin, fell on the stairs entering her half, owing to a defective step, and was injured. She sues the defendant.
There was evidence that Mrs. Chaplin in hiring the premises spoke with a son of the defendant who told her he would keep the premises in good repair, and that all she had to do was to notify him if anything needed repair. He took her to his father and she became his tenant. Both father and son testified that the son had no authority to contract or to let property on the defendant's behalf. She paid the rent to the son, who was accustomed to show premises to prospective tenants and to make repairs on his father's properties. The defendant testified that he felt that he was not obliged to ask permission of his tenants to make outside repairs. He also testified that he personally rented the premises to Mrs. Chaplin and made no agreement about repairs. If he noticed a need for repairs, or was notified repairs were needed, he tried to make them as soon as possible. He had a blanket policy of liability insurance covering this building and other buildings. There was testimony that the plaintiff noticed the defective step about two weeks before her fall and called Mrs. Chaplin's attention to it; that when she paid the rent, Mrs. Chaplin notified the defendant's son of it and he promised to repair it. Mrs. Chaplin moved away from the premises three or four weeks after the accident. The plaintiff testified that about three weeks after the accident she saw some one fixing the stairs. The defendant's son denied any talk of making repairs on the steps and any notice of need of repairs. None were made before the accident.
The defendant rested at the close of the plaintiff's evidence; a verdict for the defendant was directed; and the judge reported the case on the stipulation that if the cause should have been submitted to the jury judgment in a stated sum should be entered for the plaintiff, otherwise judgment should be entered on the verdict; in either case without costs.
The verdict was directed properly. There was no sufficient evidence to show liability on the defendant's part to make repairs. The case is controlled by the decision in Fiorntino v. Mason, 233 Mass. 451, 124 N. E. 283, where the applicable law is fully stated. Here, as there, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant undertook ‘direct and initial responsibility...
To continue reading
Request your trial