Scibek v. O'connell.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1945 |
| Citation | 131 Conn. 557,41 A.2d 251 |
| Parties | SCIBEK v. O'CONNELL. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; McLaughlin, Judge.
Action by Mary Scibek against Charles K. O'Connell for damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a stairway in defendant's building alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and appeal by defendant.
No error. Motion for reargument denied.
DeLancey Pelgrift, of Hartford, for appellant.
John H. Sheehan, of New Haven, and Joseph N. Perelmutter, of Seymour for appellee.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover for injuries suffered from a fall on a stairway in the defendant's building leading from a store leased by her husband to the cellar below. She claimed that the defendant's liability arose from his negligent failure to carry out his agreement to replace or repair the stairway. The sole assignment of error is based on the denial of the motion to set aside the plaintiff's verdict.
The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: The plaintiff's husband, Stanley Scibek, leased a store in Seymour from the defendant on January 1, 1942. The written lease was for one year and provided that the tenant should make internal repairs. After its expiration, Stanley continued in occupation on a month to month basis. He paid the rent to July 31, 1943. A stairway led from a trap door in the floor of the store to the cellar. The stairway had a handrail but was not inclosed and resembled a ladder more than a stairway although it had treads instead of rungs. It was steep, unsafe and in bas condition. Stanley used the stairway constantly but the plaintiff had never used it until July 31, 1943. On that occasion she went down safely but when she started to return to the store the first step broke, she fell and was injured.
Stanley complained to the defendant of the condition of the stairway on many occasions throughout the term of his occupancy. On June 30, 1943, and again on July 1, 1943, he told the defendant that unless he fixed the stairway he, Stanley, would move out, but that if the stairway was fixed he would stay. The defendant agreed to fix it in a week or ten days but failed to do so. As a result, Stanley got another rent and was moving when the accident occurred, although he was still a tenant of the defendant.
A landlord who has retained control of a portion of the premises is under a duty to use reasonable care to keep them in a reasonably safe condition. Fogarty v. M. J. Beuchler & Son, Inc., 124 Conn. 325, 331, 199 A. 550. By reason of his retention of control, he has the right to inspect them at all times and is under a duty to make reasonable inspection. Aprile v. Colonial Trust Co., 118 Conn. 573, 580, 173 A. 237. Constructive notice of the necessity for repair may therefore be inferred from his failure to make a reasonable inspection. Laflin v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 127 Conn. 61, 65, 13 A.2d 760. From the defendant's reliance on the Beuchler case, it would seem that he bases his appeal in part at least on these principles, but the facts in the case at bar do not bring it within their scope.
The plaintiff, as stated above, relies on negligence arising from breach of an agreement by the defendant landlord to make repairs. Such an action may arise. Dean v. Hershowitz, 119 Conn. 398, 410, 177 A. 262; Papallo v. Meriden Savings Bank, 128 Conn. 563, 565, 24 A.2d 472. If the promise is made to induce the tenant to remain for a new or longer term, it is based upon a sufficient consideration. Id.; Stevens v. Yale, 101 Conn. 683, 687, 127 A. 283. Negligence, not the breach of the agreement, is the gist of this action and it follows that the necessary elements to establish negligence must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putnam v. Stout
...Ark. 122, 216 S.W. 1059; Scholey v. Steele, 59 Cal.App.2d 402, 138 P.2d 733; Davis v. Marr, 160 Colo. 27, 413 P.2d 707; Scibek v. O'Connell, 131 Conn. 557, 41 A.2d 251; Propper v. Kesner, 104 So.2d 1 (Fla.); Williams v. Davis, 188 Kan. 385, 362 P.2d 641; 2310 Madison Ave. v. Allied Bedding ......
-
Faber v. Creswick
...to the benefit of the cause of action. Mariotti v. Berns, 114 Cal.App.2d 666, 251 P.2d 72 (Dist.Ct.App.1952); Scibek v. O'Connell, 131 Conn. 557, 41 A.2d 251 (Sup.Ct.Err.1945); Alaimo v. DuPont, 4 Ill.App.2d 85, 123 N.E.2d 583 (App.Ct.1955); Page v. Ginsberg, 345 Ill.App. 68, 102 N.E.2d 165......
-
Kowinko v. Salecky
...inspection to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Nelson v. D'Agastino, 135 Conn. 384, 386, 64 A.2d 539; Scibek v. O'Connell, 131 Conn. 557, 559, 41 A.2d 251; Aprile v. Colonial Trust Co., 118 Conn. 573, 580, 173 A. 237. 'The primary duty of the landlord is to use reasonable c......
-
Youngset, Inc. v. Five City Plaza, Inc.
...v. National Savings Bank, 128 Conn. 493, 496, 23 A.2d 922; DesMarchais v. Daly, 135 Conn. 623, 625, 67 A.2d 549; Scibek v. O'Connell, 131 Conn. 557, 559, 41 A.2d 251; Papallo v. Meriden Savings Bank, 128 Conn. 563, 565, 24 A.2d 472; Restatement (Second), 2 Torts § 357. Since the duty arises......