Yuppa v. Whittaker
| Decision Date | 31 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | 9860,Nos. 9859,s. 9859 |
| Citation | 145 A.2d 255,88 R.I. 214 |
| Parties | , 86 A.L.R.2d 788 Thomas Joseph YUPPA, Jr., p.a. v. John E. WHITTAKER et al. Agnes YUPPA v. John E. WHITTAKER et al. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Arcaro & Belilove, Abraham Belilove, Providence, for plaintiffs.
Francis V. Reynolds, Richard P. McMahon, Providence, for defendants.
These actions of trespass on the case were heard together in the superior court on demurrers to the plaintiffs' declarations.They are here on the plaintiffs' exceptions to the decisions sustaining the demurrers.
Each declaration consists of four counts in negligence and a fifth in nuisance.The alleged cause of action arose out of an injury sustained by plaintiffThomas Joseph Yuppa, Jr. as a result of coming in contact with a heated pipe in a tenement rented from the defendants by his mother, plaintiffAgnes Yuppa, and her husband.Such tenement was on the first floor and was heated by a central system which heated other tenements on the upper floors.The heated pipe in question passed through plaintiff's tenement and provided heat for the tenement above.Each declaration avers that defendants had exclusive control of the central heating system.
The first count in the child's declaration alleges a duty on the part of defendants to keep the system in a reasonably safe condition so that the pipes would not become overheated.The second count similarly alleges a duty to prevent overheating of the pipes.The third count also alleges a duty to provide heat from the system in such a manner that the pipes would not become overheated.The fourth count alleges a further duty on the part of defendants to cover the heated pipes so that persons in the tenement, especially a child of tender years, would not be injured by coming in contact with them.The fifth count alleges that the pipe in question was overheated and uncovered and in such condition became and was a nuisance for which defendants were liable.
The mother's declaration also consists of four counts in negligence and one in nuisance.Each count substantially alleges the same duty on the part of defendants in the circumstances and their breach thereof as is alleged in the child's declaration except that the mother alleges consequential damages to her as a result of his injury.
The trial justice found that none of the first three counts alleged the breach of any lawful duty on the part of defendants as landlords of the rented tenement.He also found that the fourth count was likewise defective with reference to any special duty to the child.The fifth count he found lacking in allegations of any actionable duty under the law of nuisance.
The plaintiffs contend that he erred in sustaining the demurrers on such grounds.They argue that a landlord in exclusive control of all apparatus necessary to heat rented premises is liable for injuries suffered by the infant son of a tenant and for consequential damages to the parent where a pipe in the system becomes overheated or where the pipe is not covered so as to prevent such injury.They further contend that the presence of such a heated pipe in rented premises constitutes an actionable nuisance for which the landlord is liable.They concede that he is not liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trotter by Trotter v. Chicago Housing Authority
...pipe); and Coleman v. Steinberg (1969), 253 A.2d 167, 54 N.J. 58 (one-year-old infant--hot water pipe). However, in Yuppa v. Whittaker (1958), 145 A.2d 255, 88 R.I. 214 the court held that the landlord of a tenement in which a child was injured from an uncovered heated pipe was not liable s......
-
Tillotson v. Abbott
...cases were relieved of liability for such injuries: Hyde, Next Friend v. Bryant, 114 Ga.App. 535, 151 S.E.2d 925; Yuppa v. Whittaker, 88 R.I. 214, 145 A.2d 255; Davis v. Marr, 160 Colo. 27, 413 P.2d 707; Cooper v. Boston Housing Authority, 342 Mass, 38, 172 N.E.2d 117 and Hanson v. Luft, 58......
-
Thompson v. Paseo Manor South, Inc.
...among the things that the landlord controls.' We recognize that the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in the recent case of Yuppa v. Whittaker, 145 A.2d 255, 257, takes a contrary view. In that case, plaintiff's petition alleges substantially the same facts as exist in the instant case, even t......
-
Coleman v. Steinberg
...over those portions of the heating system within the leased apartment and therefore no liability exists is Yuppa v. Whittaker, 88 R.I. 214, 145 A.2d 255, 86 A.L.R.2d 788 (Sup.Ct.1958). Other decisions hold that an exposed pipe in an apartment extending from the central heating system is und......