Sodekson v. Lynch

• Citation: 298 Mass. 72,9 N.E.2d 372
• Parties: SODEKSON v. LYNCH et al.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1937
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

298 Mass. 72
9 N.E.2d 372

SODEKSON
v.
LYNCH et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 30, 1937.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Morton, Judge.

Action of tort by Ruth E. Sodekson, p. p. a., against Annie M. Lynch and others, wherein there was a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $100, and the defendants saved exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

[9 N.E.2d 372]

M. B. Lynch, of Boston, for defendants.

LUMMUS, Justice.

The plaintiff, a minor, lived with her father in a tenement on the third floor of a building in Boston owned by the defendant Maurice B. Lynch, who will be called the defendant. The building had three stories, and contained six tenements. The tenancy was at will, and began in November, 1930. In August, 1931, at about half past eight in the evening, when it was dusk but not dark, the plaintiff fell down an unlighted common stairway between the second floor and the street floor. There was no evidence of any defect in the stairs themselves. There was a hand rail, on which the plaintiff put her hand lightly, though she did not grasp it.

The principal exception is to the denial of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The evidence raises at least two questions of difficulty, which we need not discuss in view of the result to which we have come; (1) whether the plaintiff's father, against whom the defendant had recovered judgment for possession in summary process, had regained his status as a tenant at will, and (2) whether the evidence warranted a finding that darkness was the cause of the fall.

The decisive point is that no duty to light the stairs was shown. We start with the proposition that ‘a landlord is under no obligation to light the common halls and stairways under his control in tenement buildings occupied by his tenants, unless he has undertaken to do so by express

[9 N.E.2d 373]

or implied agreement, or is bound so to do by statutory provisions.’ Carey v. Klein, 259 Mass. 90, 92, 155 N.E. 868, 869;McGowan v. Monahan, 199 Mass. 296, 298, 85 N.E. 105,17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 928, 127 Am.St.Rep. 501. Whether there was evidence for the jury of such an implied agreement (Gallagher v. Murphy, 221 Mass. 363, 108 N.E. 1081, Ann.Cas.1917E, 594;Maran v. Peabody, 228 Mass. 432, 117 N.E. 847;Polansky v. Heller, 241 Mass. 484, 485, 135 N.E. 572;Steele v. Lifland, 265 Mass. 233, 163 N.E. 898) need not be considered, for the existence of such an agreement was not submitted to the jury and the verdict for the plaintiff cannot be taken to involve a finding that such an agreement existed. The case was submitted to the jury as one turning upon a statutory duty to light the stairway.

The building act applicable to Boston, St. 1907, c. 550, § 42(6), defines a public hall in a tenement house as ‘a hall, corridor, or passageway not within an apartment.’ St. 1924, c. 136, provides: ‘Public halls and main...