Stack v. Harris

• Decision Date: 09 July 1900
• Citation: 36 S.E. 615,111 Ga. 149
• Parties: STACK v. HARRIS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

36 S.E. 615

111 Ga. 149

STACK v. HARRIS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 9, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

Though a landlord will not be liable in damages for injuries to a tenant resulting from the defective condition of a plank in the floor of the rented building, of which the landlord had no notice, a petition which alleges that the plaintiff (a tenant) was injured by reason of such a defect, and that the landlord (the defendant) had notice of the "defective condition of the floor," sufficiently alleges, as against a general demurrer, that the defendant had notice of the defective condition of the plank.

Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by J. L. Harris against Minnie Stack. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Hammond Skeen & Langley, for plaintiff in error.

D. W Rountree, for defendant in error.

COBB J.

Harris brought suit against Miss Minnie Stack, alleging in his petition: That on the 18th day of May, 1899, he rented from the defendant a storehouse in the city of Atlanta. That he was a gunsmith by trade, and used the store rented as a general repair shop. That on the night of July 15, 1899, about 11 o'clock, when he quit work and was preparing to clean the floor of the storehouse, he stepped upon a plank in the floor, which was apparently sound, and the same gave way under him, causing him to fall, and by reason thereof he sustained serious and painful injuries. When he rented the premises, the floor was our of repair in different places, but portions of the floor seemed to be sound and in good condition, and such was the appearance of those portions of the floor where he usually worked, and where he was at the time he received the injuries above referred to. When he used those portions of the floor that were out of repair, he did so with the greatest caution. There was nothing in the appearance of the plank that gave way under him to indicate that it was at all dangerous. At the time that he rented the store he called the attention of the defendant to the "defective condition of the floor," and she agreed to repair it. When he paid the second month's rent, he made a similar complaint to the agent of the defendant who collected the rent, and subsequently he reported to the defendant that the floor was out of repair, and she agreed to make the repairs. He complains that his injuries were due to the negligence of the defendant in not having the floor repaired after her attention was called to the same. The defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition, which the court overruled, and she excepted.

As against a general demurrer, the petition sets forth a cause of action. The common law placed the burden of repairs upon the tenant, and the landlord was not bound to make repairs unless there was an express stipulation to that effect in the contract which created the relation of landlord and tenant. Neither was there any implied warranty on the part of the landlord that the premises were suitable for the purposes for which they were leased, or that they were in a condition to be occupied. 1 Tayl. Land. & Ten. (8th Ed.) §§ 175a, 327 328; Gear, Land. & Ten. § 104. The common-law rule is not of force in Georgia. Under our Code, the landlord, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, is bound to keep the premises in repair. Civ. Code, § 3123. He is, however, entitled to notice from the tenant that the premises are out of repair, and if, after such notice has been given, the tenant suffers damage on account of the failure of the landlord to make the necessary repairs, the landlord is liable for the damage thus...