Burks v. Blackman

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before a jury in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals.

Facts:

Defendants are owners and operators of an apartment house. Plaintiff rented one of the apartments, and in connection with the use thereof it was necessary for her to use a porch

*

and a stairway in the rear of her apartment immediately outside and opposite her back door.

On July 22, 1954, while plaintiff was walking along the porch it collapsed, and she was thrown to the ground and suffered personal injuries.

The porch upon which plaintiff was walking when it collapsed was used exclusively by plaintiff and her husband. However, it was contiguous to other parts of the apartment structure used in common by all the tenants in the building.

[717]

Such parts had the same basic support as the porch used exclusively by plaintiff.

A structural engineer examined the porch soon after the accident and discovered that there was a generalized rotted and decaying condition under it and that a-supporting member of the collapsed porch also had supported a porch and some steps that led to apartments above the one occupied by plaintiff.

Questions:

First.

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury regarding the landlord’s duty to his tenant?

Tes.

The trial court’s instructions on this subject may be summarized as follows:

1. You are first required to determine whether the portion of the stairway that collapsed was a common area or whether it was for the exclusive use of the plaintiff tenant.

a. The test is not whether it is supported by a beam which also supports a common area.

b. The distance between this area and any area of common use is immaterial.