A landlord is not liable to the tenant for an injury caused by an overt or readily determinable defect in the premises.
There is no room left so you can write this sentence in the space over the name and citation of the case that follows. Copy it now.
Let us also assume that on the first fast read-through you have looked up the following unfamiliar terms in your law dictionary:
- etal.: "and others" (because of space limitations, normally only the name of the first listed party on each side is given).
- suffered: permitted.
- Mason, C. J: Chief Judge of the county court where this case was tried.
- parole lease: oral rental agreement.
- alleged exceptions: claimed objections to the ruling of the trial court.
- Knowlton, J: a Justice of the Supreme Court, writer of the opinion.
- implied covenant: an agreement which the law imposes on the parties to a contract, even though not considered by them.
- caveat emptor: "let the buyer beware."
- ubi supra: "where above mentioned" (previous citation).
- exceptions overruled: trial court verdict stands (plaintiffs objections raised as grounds for appeal are without merit).
BOOTH v. MERRIAM el al
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
155 Mass. 521 (1892)
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, C.J., there was evidence tending to show that the defendants were the owners of the house numbered 29 on Harvard Street in Boston, which set back from the street fifty or sixty feet, and of a yard in front of the house, and also another yard in the rear of the house; that the plaintiffs son, acting for his mother, hired the house of the defendant's agent, by a parole lease at a monthly rent, about three months before the time of the said accident, and the plaintiff had lived therein for these three months, carrying on the business of keeping boarders; that when the house was hired nothing was said about any yard, either in front or in the rear of the same; that the front yard was used to gain access to the house, and also to three or four other houses; that the yard in the rear was apparently designed only to be used by those occupying said house No. 29; that the cesspool was situated in the yard back of the house, and was used as a receptacle of the water that ran from the sink in the house, and was covered by a wooden frame, into which was set an iron cover; that the plaintiff, on the day of the accident, went out of the back door of said house, and started to go to a tub, which was placed under a window at the rear of said house, for the purpose of putting a piece of meat under the tub, this being where the plaintiff kept her meat; and that in walking from the back door towards the tub she stepped upon the iron cover, which was on a level with the surface of the ground, when it suddenly fell, causing the plaintiff to fall into the cesspool, and injuring her severely.
The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff did not know anything about the location of the cesspool, nor the manner in which it was covered, and that she did not notice anything about it at the time; that the wooden frame in which the iron cover was placed had become so badly decayed as to be incapable of holding any weight; and the plaintiff contended, upon the evidence, that it must have been in the same condition at the time when said house was hired as aforesaid. No question was made that the plaintiff did not exercise due care.
Upon the evidence, the judge ruled that the defendants would not be liable to the plaintiff in this action, and that the action could not be maintained.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
KNOWLTON, J. In an ordinary lease of a dwelling-house there is no implied covenant that the premises are in good repair or fit for habitation. "The rule of caveat emptor applies, and it is for the lessee to make the examination necessary to determine whether the premises he hires are safe, and adapted to the purpose for which they are hired." Cowen v.
Sunderland, 145 Mass. 363, Stevens v. Pierce, 151 Mass. 207. If there is a concealed defect that renders the premises dangerous which the tenant cannot discover by the exercise of reasonable diligence, of which the landlord has or ought to have knowledge, it is the landlord's duty to disclose it, and he is liable for an injury which results from his concealment of it. Cowen v. Sunderland, ubi supra.Minor v. Sharon, 112 Mass. 477.Bowe v. Hunking, 135 Mass. 380.
Exceptions overruled.
Having done your fast readings, do you understand what happened; why the parties are in court; who won down below? Mrs. Booth rented a dwelling house from Merriam on a month-to-month basis. There was no written lease, just a verbal agreement. Nothing was said about the condition of the premises. Some months later, as she walked through the yard, she stepped on a cesspool cover with a weak frame. There was no evidence to indicate that the landlord was aware of the condition. The boards broke and she fell in and was injured. She sued Merriam for damages.
Based on this set of facts, the trial judge ruled that she did not have legal grounds to hold the defendant liable and directed the jury to find for the defense. Now she is appealing to a higher court.
When you have actually gone back and are doing your experimental analysis of this case, do not read any further than the end of this paragraph, but instead, read the opinion through slowly four or five limes to grasp the legal arguments of the parties and to see how and why the appellate court resolved the issue as it did.
You will observe that appellant, Mrs. Booth, is contending (by her lawyer through the briefs and oral argument) that the landlord had a duty to warn her of the dangerous condition of the cesspool cover. She concedes that under the general rule a tenant normally cannot recover damages from the landlord for an injury occurring because the premises need repairs; however, she argues that in this case the rule should not be applied because the facts bring her case under an exception to the general rule: allowing recovery if there is a hidden defect in the premises which the landlord knew or should have known about.
The court compares the facts in the cases she cites with those in the case at hand and concludes that this is not a hidden-defect case. It suggests that the tenant had as much a duty to inspect the premises as the landlord, and since the evidence does not indicate that either had done so, it will not presume any advantage to the tenant. The court iterates the general rule, and by this case refines it slightly, holding: a landlord is not liable to the tenant for an injury caused by an overt or readily determinable defect in the premises.
Did you notice as you worked through this case that the court has given us a little history of the development of the law in this area? We learn that the tenant takes the premises as is; that he or she should make a personal inspection to see if there is any dangerous condition; that without any agreement between the parties, the landlord is under no duty to search for defects; that if the landlord knows or is chargeable with knowledge of any hidden defects (maybe he caused some bad construction or repairs to be made), then the landlord has a legal duty to bring this to the attention of the tenant.
By the time you would actually reach this case in the casebook, you would have learned that among the elements of a tort action which the plaintiff must prove in order to win is that the defendant owed the plaintiff some legal duty and that the breach of that duty caused the injury.
In the Booth case, the Massachusetts court found that Merriam was under no legal duty to notify Mrs. Booth of the defect in the cesspool cover. Consequently, it did not have to go any further in order to find there was no liability.
Well, you have gone through this case fairly intensely. Can we try our knowledge on a couple of hypotheticals? Suppose the original oral lease had been in writing? Suppose the lease said the building could only be used as a single-family dwelling? Suppose Booth had asked Merriam to fix the cover and he agreed to do so, but had not gotten around to doing it at the time of the accident? What if, under that circumstance, one of Booth's boarders fell in? How about some neighbor's child taking a short cut through the yard? What about a night burglar?
We forgot to draw the stick picture to further identify the case. Give the case a name; create your own picture and draw it in the book now, right up next to the rule of the case you wrote when you started. It will be a long time before you forget Booth v. Merriam.
As you go through the cases in your casebook, be aware that many of them, like this one, do not necessarily represent the actual state of the law now. Rather, they are there to show the development of the law; to give you practice in-judicial reasoning; to get you in the habit of using legal terminology as part of your thinking. Also remember that the holding in a case may later be changed by statute in the jurisdiction where it arose; that the law is not necessarily the same in every state; and that a federal constitutional issue, not perceived at the time, may be decided years later in a way that wipes out the effect of applicable past decisions.
