Smeriglio v. Conn. Sav. Bank

Decision Date07 December 1942
Citation129 Conn. 461,29 A.2d 443
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSMERIGLIO v. CONNECTICUT SAVINGS BANK.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Foster, Judge.

Action by Enrico Smeriglio against the Connecticut Savings Bank to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant which was in control of stairs of a tenement house which defendant owned. The trial court directed a verdict for defendant and entered a judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals from the denial of his motion to set the verdict aside.

No error.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and JENNINGS, ELLS, DICKENSON and INGLIS, JJ.

John Henry Sheehan, of New Haven (Harold Perlman and Israel J. Jacobs, both of New Haven, on the brief), for the appellant-plaintiff.

Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, for the appellee-defendant.

JENNINGS, Judge.

The plaintiff, an invitee, was injured by a fall on stairs retained in the control of the defendant landlord. At the close of his testimony, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the denial of his motion to set the verdict aside.

The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: The defendant was the owner of a tenement house in New Haven. March 19, 1941, was a rather dark rainy day. At about 9 o'clock on that morning the plaintiff delivered five gallons of fuel oil to a third floor tenant in the house. He descended from the third to the second floor but, when he started down the stairway from the second to the street floor, he slipped and fell. The top tread, on which he fell, was worn and defective. There were grease and garbage on it. A bulb for lighting the stairway was provided but it was not turned on when the plaintiff fell and the stairway was rather dark. His complaint lists these three factors as the causes of his fall.

The landlord is under a duty to use reasonable care to keep those parts of his building which are under his control in a reasonably safe condition. Aprile v. Colonial Trust Co., 118 Conn. 573, 580, 173 A. 237. If he fails in that duty and has actual or constructive notice of the defect, an injured plaintiff who is himself in the exercise of due care can recover. Esserman v. Madden, 123 Conn. 386, 389, 195 A. 739. Directed verdicts are not favored. Heringer v. Underwood Typewriter Co., 103 Conn. 675, 678, 131 A. 322. If the evidence reasonably supports any of the allegations of negligence, the plaintiff is entitled to a new trial. Ibid.

While there was evidence that the nosing of the top tread was worn, there is no basis in the evidence for a finding that this in any way contributed to the plaintiff's fall. The presence of debris on the top tread, which the plaintiff claimed he saw after his fall, cannot form the basis for a recovery because of the lack of proof of notice. Laflin v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 127 Conn. 61, 63, 13 A.2d 760; Edwards v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 129 Conn. 245, 27 A.2d 163. The question whether there is a common-law duty to light common stairways has given rise to different rulings in the courts. White v. DeVito Realty Co., 120 Conn. 331, 335, 180 A. 461. It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Ziskin v. Confietto
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 3 Abril 1951
    ...79 A.2d 816 ... 137 Conn. 629 ... ZISKIN et al ... CONFIETTO et al ... Supreme Court of Errors of ... Smeriglio v. Connecticut Savings ... Bank, 129 Conn. 461, 462, 29 A.2d 443; ... ...
  • Morris v. King Cole Stores Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 1946
    ...the defect in time to remedy it an injured plaintiff who is himself in the exercise of due care can recover. Smeriglio v. Connecticut Savings Bank, 129 Conn. 461, 462, 29 A.2d 443. The defendants do not claim that the floor was reasonably safe or that the plaintiff was guilty of contributor......
  • Foster v. Hartford Buick Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 8 Noviembre 1944
    ...would support a claim of constructive notice. Laflin v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 127 Conn. 61, 63, 13 A.2d 760; Smeriglio v. Connecticut Savings Bank, 129 Conn. 461, 462, 29 A.2d 443. It is the contention of the plaintiff, however, that the defendant had actual notice of the presence of the c......
  • Marchais v. Daly.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 5 Julio 1949
    ...plaintiff's verdict, and the action of the trial court in directing a verdict for the defendant was correct. Smeriglio v. Connecticut Savings Bank, 129 Conn. 461, 463, 29 A.2d 443. We do not need to discuss the claim of the plaintiff that repairs made by the defendant subsequent to the acci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT