Vallen v. Cullin

• Decision Date: 08 March 1921
• Citation: 238 Mass. 145,130 N.E. 216
• Parties: VALLEN v. CULLIN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

238 Mass. 145

130 N.E. 216

VALLEN

v.CULLIN. ^*

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 8, 1921.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; George A. Sanderson, Judge.

Action of tort for personal injuries by Catherine Vallen against Addie A. Cullin, administratrix of the estate of John W. Cullin, resulting in verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

The Court refused to give the plaintiff's written requests which follow, to which rulings the Plaintiff duly excepted:--

[238 Mass. 146]1. The landlord must maintain the doors, doorways, entryways and stairways used in common by the tenants and their families in proper condition and if through failure to do this in respect to any or all of these things the plaintiff, in the exercise of due care, fell and was injured, your verdict should be for her.

2. If you believe the defendant allowed any door, doorway, entryway or stairway used in common by the tenants and their families to be in a dangerous condition, any or all, that is in violation of the Acts of 1907, c. 550, § 127, and evidence of negligence.

3. If you believe the defendant allowed the door, doorway, entryway or stairway used in common by the tenants or their families to be in a dangerous condition, any or all, and in consequence thereof the plaintiff, in the exercise of due care, was injured, your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

4. If you believe the tenement house where the plaintiff lived consisted of more than eight tenements in a building more than three stories high, the failure to light an entryway and stairway used in common by the tenants and their families is in violation of the Special Acts of 1915, Chapter 352, Section 4, and evidence of negligence.

E. H. Savary, of Boston, for plaintiff.

W. J. Patron, of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff in falling down a flight of stairs, which led from the roof to the third floor of the tenement house, where she lived with her husband and family. The building was owned by the defendant, and consisted of ten apartments and a store. The tenants had a right to use the roof for the purpose of drying clothes. It was entered from inside the building by means of a stairway to a pent house from which a door led directly to the closed area of the roof. Upon the elevated threshold of the doorway, there was a piece of zinc; and there was evidence that it projected above the threshold, upon which, the plaintiff testified, she tripped and fell down the stairs. The pent house, stairway and hallway were dark at the time of the accident, and there was no means of lighting them. This condition had existed from the beginning of the tenancy of the plaintiff's husband to the time of the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The case is before us on exceptions to the exclusion of evidence, to the refusal of the presiding judge to give certain requests for rulings, and to his interpretation of certain statutes hereafter referred to.

The defendant offered evidence to show that at the time of the accident the zinc on the threshold was not raised up, as witnesses for the plaintiff had testified. In order to meet this defense the plaintiff offered ‘to show by more witnesses in rebuttal that a piece of tin or zinc * * * [had stuck] up from this threshold for at least three months next prior to the injury.’ This testimony was a part of the plaintiff's case in chief and should then have been introduced; the judge in his...