Sanford v. Belemyessi
| Decision Date | 14 June 1972 |
| Citation | 284 N.E.2d 588,362 Mass. 123 |
| Parties | Elsie SANFORD et al. v. Iliona BELEMYESSI. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stanley R. Lapon, Cambridge, for plaintiffs.
Warren Delaney, Boston, for defendant.
Before TAURO, C.J., and SPIEGEL, REARDON, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
This is an action of tort brought by Elsie Sanford (the plaintiff) and her husband to recover for personal injuries and consequential damages sustained when the plaintiff fell on a rear porch of a dwelling owned by the defendant. Jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were set aside by the judge on the defendant's motion for entry of verdicts under leave reserved. The case is before us on the plaintiffs' exception to the judge's ruling.
The sole issue raised here is whether there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to find that the area in which the plaintiff fell was under the control of the defendant.
A summary of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiffs on the issue of control is as follows: Sometime in April, 1964, the plaintiffs moved into an apartment in a dwelling owned by the defendant. The dwelling was a duplex apartment house and contained four apartments. The plaintiffs occupied the first floor apartment on one side of the dwelling. It appeared that there was a common front entrance to the plaintiffs' side of the dwelling and a rear entrance located on a small porch. Access to the porch from the yard was gained by ascending two wooden steps. The plaintiff fell on this rear porch as she started to descend the stairs. The evidence establishes that this small porch and stairway located at the rear of the house provided access to the plaintiffs' apartment only. Access from the rear to the apartments situated on the second and third floors on the plaintiffs' side of the dwelling was gained by a separate rear entrance and stairway.
There was other evidence that the heating units and the gas and electric meters for the dwelling were located in the cellar and that, on occasion, meter readers and other servicemen requested and gained permission from the plaintiff to get to the cellar by going onto the rear porch and through the plaintiffs' kitchen. On one or two occasions the landlord and other tenants in the dwelling were given permission to pass through the plaintiffs' apartment to get to the cellar. There was other evidenc that access to the cellar could be gained through a bulkhead situated at the rear of the house and that the defendant made available to anyone seeking entrance to the cellar a key for the bulkhead by placing it in the front common hallway. The plaintiff testified that the bulkhead was never used during the winter because of the snow accumulation. Other evidence indicated that the bulkhead was unlocked during the summer. Regardless of whether it was locked or unlocked, the plaintiff testified that an inner cellar door had to be unbolted from the inside. She testified that she would either allow the servicemen to use the porch and pass through the kitchen or would instruct them to get the key from the front shall and open the bulkhead whereupon she would go into the cellar and unbolt the inner door.
Finally, the plaintiff testified that after she became a tenant she noticed the defective condition on the porch and brought it to the attention of the defendant who said that it would be repaired. No repairs were ever made to the porch by the defendant.
1. We assume that, apart from the issue of control, the evidence was sufficient to establish liability on the part of the defendant. The defendant contends that the judge was correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Waltham Indus. Laboratories
...to respond, as I find that I need not explore the applications of the Newton case here. 9 Travelers cites Sanford v. Belemyessi, 362 Mass. 123, 124-25, 284 N.E.2d 588 (1972) for the proposition that where a tenant had exclusive access to a part of a building and had exercised some dominion ......
-
Crowell v. McCaffrey
...conclusive. The porch was not part of the means of access leading exclusively to the tenant's apartment, as in Sanford v. Belemyessi, 362 Mass. 123, 125, 284 N.E.2d 588 (1972), and Minkkinen v. Nyman, 325 Mass. 92, 94, 89 N.E.2d 209 The defendant relies heavily on Ludden v. Schwartz, 291 Ma......
-
Com. v. Dunphy
...area); Martin v. Reis, 344 Mass. 32, 181 N.E.2d 581 (1962) (outside alleyway characterized as common area). Cf. Sanford v. Belemyessi, 362 Mass. 123, 284 N.E.2d 588 (1972) (exterior stairs and porch used by and within exclusive control of one set of tenants). Thus, unless 82 Leonard Street ......
-
Commonwealth v. Moore
...time" in his apartment, this fact alone would not warrant finding that he lacked exclusive control of premises). Cf. Sanford v. Belemyessi, 362 Mass. 123, 125-126 (1972) (finding that exterior stairs and porch were used by and within exclusive control of one set of A more appropriate instru......