Siggins v. McGill

• Decision Date: 20 November 1905
• Citation: 62 A. 411,72 N.J.L. 263
• Parties: SIGGINS v. McGILL et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

62 A. 411

72 N.J.L. 263

SIGGINS

v. McGILL et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 20, 1905.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Supreme Court.

Action by John Siggins against Julia Thayer McGill and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Bedle, Edwards & Thompson, for plaintiffs in error. Joseph Anderson, for defendant in error.

PITNEY, J. Plaintiff was a tenant of the defendants, occupying an apartment in a building owned by them in Jersey City. There were several apartments in the building, and these were separately rented out by defendants to different families. The halls and stairways of the building were used in common by the several tenants. While descending one of these stairways, the plaintiff stumbled and fell, sustaining personal injuries. This action was brought to recover compensation therefor from the landlords, upon the ground that the plaintiff's fall was due to the bad condition of the stair covering. The verdict and consequent judgment were in favor of the plaintiff. There were motions for nonsuit and for direction of a verdict in favor of the defendants, both of which were denied. They were based in part upon the ground that the plaintiff knew, or ought to have known, the condition of the stair covering, and either had assumed the risk or by his own negligence had contributed to his injury. These grounds were untenable; there being at least disputable questions of fact for the jury's determination with respect to the plaintiff's knowledge of the condition of the stairs and with respect to his care while using them. The motions were based also upon the ground that there was no liability on the part of the landlords for the condition of the staircase. The learned trial justice, having refused the motions, submitted the case to the jury with this instruction: That since the building was occupied by several families, who had the use of the halls and stairways in common, there rested upon the defendants the duty of using reasonable care to keep the halls and stairways in proper condition for the common use of the tenants. To this instruction, as well as to the denial of the motions, exception was duly sealed.

In this state it is established as a general rule that the landlord is not liable for injuries sustained by a tenant or his family or guests by reason of the ruinous condition of the premises demised; there being upon the letting of a house or lands no implied contract or condition that the premises are or shall be fit and suitable for the use of the tenants. So it was held by the Supreme...