Dorfer v. Delucchi

California Court of Appeal Oct 20, 1943 No. Civ. 12476Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a landlord is liable for injuries resulting from a failure to exercise ordinary care in maintaining common areas, and that the trial court's findings regarding the landlord's negligence and the tenant's lack of contributory negligence were supported by sufficient evidence.

Issues

Whether a landlord has a duty to maintain common stairways in a safe condition for tenants.
Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the landlord negligently maintained a loose carpet.
Whether the tenant was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to observe the loose carpet.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a duty is imposed upon the landlord to use ordinary care to keep that particular portion of the premises in a safe condition.”

“Where two inferences may be equally drawn from the evidence the action of the trial court in drawing one rather than the other is conclusive on appeal.”

“We cannot say as a matter of law that plaintiff must or should have observed its condition.”

DO CLING, J. pro tem.

Plaintiff recovered judgment for personal injuries in a trial without a jury, from which judgment defendant appeals.

Defendant was the owner of an apartment house and plaintiff occupied as his tenant an apartment on the second floor. In descending the common stairway from this apartment to the ground floor plaintiff slipped and fell, suffering the injuries which were the basis of the' judgment appealed from. Defendant claims on appeal that the evidence does not support the finding of defendant’s negligence and also shows without contradiction that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The complaint alleged, and the answer admitted, that “defendant reserved for the use of all its tenants of said building the halls and stairway leading from the first to the second story of said building.” This admission brings into play the settled exception to the general rule covering the liability of the landlord for injuries to his tenant from defects in the premises, thus stated in 7 Cal.Jur., Ten-year Supp., page 444:

‘ ‘ The general rule that a landlord is not liable to a tenant

[65]

for injuries due to the defective condition or faulty construction of the demised premises is subject to an exception to the effect that where a portion of the premises is reserved by the landlord for use in common by himself and tenants, or by different tenants, a duty is imposed upon the landlord to use ordinary care to keep that particular portion of the premises in a safe condition.”

Without further reference to them we may state that this fact sufficiently distinguishes many of the cases cited by appellant which were concerned solely with injuries to tenants from defective conditions in premises let to the tenants and in their exclusive possession and control.

The complaint counted on two separate acts of negligence: the absence of a handrail from the stairway, and the maintenance of a carpet on the stairs in a loose and dangerous condition.

We may disregard the absence of the handrail, which appellant contends cannot be the basis of a recovery in view of the holding in

Watwood

Dorfer v. Delucchi

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief