Citation Numbers: 123 A. 263, 100 Conn. 234, 1924 Conn. LEXIS 3
Judges: Wheeler, Beach, Curtis, Keeler, Kellogg
Filed Date: 1/8/1924
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
There is no obligation at common law on the part of a landlord to make repairs upon leased property or to keep the same in safe condition, apart from a contract so to do. Gallagher v. Button,
In Priest v. Nichols,
Applying the above considerations to the present case, we are to inquire whether the evidence produced by plaintiff at the trial presented a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the defendants in the care, management and inspection of the unoccupied tenement above the store. There had been for sometime previous to the occurrence of the injury very severe weather with temperatures as shown by the weather report figures, Exhibit A in the case, which could scarcely fail to freeze water in a room not heated and to cause water pipes to burst, and then for a day or two a considerably higher temperature adequate to thaw out the pipes and liable to cause a flow of water to descend through *Page 239 the ceiling and cause damage to the plaintiff's goods. The landlord must have known of this, and especially as one tenant had recently left the building by reason of its coldness. Unless it can be held as a matter of law that a landlord need pay no attention to plumbing under his control in vacant tenements, so far as the condition of this plumbing may affect tenants in adjoining and lower parts of the building, with respect to weather or any other agency likely to damage such plumbing, it seems clear that the situation presented in the instant case, unexplained or justified in any legal way, discloses facts calling for a defense upon its merits. The fact that the defendant Katie Meyers, sole owner of the building, entered the store while the water was still leaking through the ceiling and that her attention was called to the fact, is not without significance. Some damage was probably done after that, as she was waited upon before plaintiff went to the plumber. The evidence in the case was of such character that conceding to plaintiff all the favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn thereupon, he was entitled to have it considered whether weak or strong.
In considering the case presented on a motion for a nonsuit, the court was not concerned with the sufficiency of the complaint in point of law; there are other ways provided to test that matter. The sole question before the trial court was whether, upon the allegations of the complaint and the admissions and denials in the subsequent pleadings, sufficient facts had been proved to make out a prima facie case. Thames Steamboat Co.
v. Housatonic R. Co.,
There is error and a new trial is ordered.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Galvin v. Birch , 98 Conn. 228 ( 1922 )
Gallagher v. Button , 73 Conn. 172 ( 1900 )
Moore v. . Goedel , 34 N.Y. 527 ( 1866 )
Girard v. Grosvenordale Co. , 83 Conn. 20 ( 1910 )
Valin v. Jewell , 88 Conn. 151 ( 1914 )
Stebel v. Connecticut Co. , 90 Conn. 24 ( 1915 )
Pentino v. Pappas , 96 Conn. 230 ( 1921 )
Stevens v. Yale , 101 Conn. 683 ( 1925 )
Garcia v. Solomon, No. 26 33 11 (Sep. 19, 1990) , 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1983 ( 1990 )
Dibiaso v. Dibiaso , 17 Conn. Super. Ct. 333 ( 1951 )
Aprile v. Colonial Trust Co. , 118 Conn. 573 ( 1934 )
Chambers v. Lowe , 117 Conn. 624 ( 1933 )
Panaroni v. Johnson , 158 Conn. 92 ( 1969 )
Falker v. Samperi , 190 Conn. 412 ( 1983 )
Pollack v. Gampel , 163 Conn. 462 ( 1972 )
Gaul v. Noiva , 155 Conn. 218 ( 1967 )
Crowell v. Palmer , 134 Conn. 502 ( 1948 )
Reynolds v. Land Mortgage & Title Co. , 114 Conn. 447 ( 1932 )