Cullings v. Goetz
176 N.E. 397, 256 N.Y. 287, 1931 N.Y. LEXIS 1054 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's covenant to repair a leased premises, by itself, does not create liability in tort for injuries sustained by the lessee's guests due to a dangerous condition on the property. Tort liability is an incident of occupation and control, which is not reserved by a mere promise to repair.
Facts:
- The Nickleys owned a garage and leased it to Goetz under an oral, month-to-month lease.
- As part of the lease, the Nickleys allegedly agreed to make necessary repairs.
- A plaintiff brought his car to the garage.
- At the entrance were two sliding doors, one open and one closed.
- The plaintiff tried to push the closed door open, but it was stuck on its track.
- When the plaintiff shook the door with force, it fell off the track and onto his back, causing injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Goetz (lessee) and the Nickleys (lessors) in the trial court.
- The jury found for the plaintiff against all defendants.
- The Nickleys, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment against the Nickleys and dismissed the complaint as to them.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's agreement to make repairs to a leased premises render the landlord liable in tort for personal injuries sustained by a third party, lawfully on the premises, as a result of the landlord's failure to repair a dangerous condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, Ch. J.
No. A landlord's covenant to repair does not impose liability in tort at the suit of a lessee or those on the land in the right of the lessee. The court reasoned that liability in tort is an incident to occupation or control of the premises. A promise to repair does not reserve control; rather, the tenant has exclusive possession and the power to admit or exclude visitors. The landlord's failure to fulfill a promise to repair is a breach of contract actionable by the tenant, but it does not transfer the duty of care owed to third parties, which remains with the party in control—the tenant. The court affirmed that this rule is deeply embedded in New York law, distinguishing it from cases involving common areas retained by the landlord or nuisances affecting the public.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law distinction between contract and tort liability in the landlord-tenant context. It firmly establishes that a landlord's breach of a contractual duty to repair does not automatically create a tort duty to protect people on the premises from harm. The key determinant for tort liability is possession and control, not contractual promises. This ruling protects out-of-possession landlords from tort claims by third parties, forcing such plaintiffs to seek remedy from the tenant who has direct control over the property's safety and access.
