Joseph v. Riffel
53 S.W.2d 987, 1932 Ark. LEXIS 338, 186 Ark. 418 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent a specific statute or contractual agreement, a landlord is generally not liable for injuries to a tenant caused by conditions in common passageways, such as unguarded elevator shafts or lack of lighting, if those conditions were present and apparent at the time the lease commenced.
Facts:
- Mallard Provision Company, managed by Appellant, leased space from Appellee in a cold storage plant for storing products and manufacturing specialties.
- The plant contained elevators operating through floor openings (wells) that lacked railings, guards, lights, or danger signs, and when at floor level, the elevator platforms were used as part of the walkway.
- The building's construction and these specific conditions were identical when Mallard Provision Company leased the space on October 31, 1930, to when Appellant was injured on February 11, 1931.
- The lease agreement stipulated that Appellee would furnish "gas, water, light and power for the use of appellant" and "elevator service to cooler and sausage-making room and all facilities * to be available at all times."
- On February 11, 1931, Appellant entered the building early, used an elevator to descend from the fourth floor to the first floor, left the elevator there, and briefly went to an outside platform.
- While Appellant was outside, someone moved the elevator from the first floor to the fifth floor.
- Upon returning, Appellant, believing the elevator was still at the first floor, stepped into the open shaft without looking and fell 24 feet into the sub-basement at approximately 6:40 a.m., when there were no lights in the corridor. Appellant had not turned on lights when he used the elevator moments before.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant initiated a lawsuit against Appellee in the circuit court of Pulaski County, Third Division, seeking damages for personal injuries due to alleged negligence.
- Appellee filed an answer denying negligence and asserting the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumed risk.
- At the conclusion of testimony, the trial court instructed a verdict against Appellant.
- The trial court subsequently rendered a judgment dismissing Appellant's complaint.
- Appellant appealed the judgment of the circuit 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 owe a duty to a tenant to provide railings, guards, lights, or danger signs around an elevator shaft in a commercial cold storage plant, or to light common corridors, when those conditions existed and were apparent at the time of the lease and are not mandated by statute or the lease agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Humphreys, J.
No, a landlord does not owe a duty to a tenant to provide railings, guards, lights, or danger signs for an elevator shaft, or to light common corridors, under the circumstances presented here. The court reasoned that, in the absence of a specific statute or contractual agreement, the general rule is that a landlord is not legally obligated to light common passageways or provide rails or guards for tenants, especially when the condition was the same and apparent at the time of letting. The court found no law requiring such safety measures in a commercial cold storage plant, nor did the written lease impose such requirements. The lease stated that Appellee would furnish "light and power" and "elevator service" but did not specify that Appellee was responsible for guarding or lighting the elevator shafts themselves or maintaining lighted corridors. The court refused to presume that the unguarded shafts, the use of elevator platforms as walkways, or the unlit corridors constituted negligence, given the intended uses of the facility. Since the Appellant failed to demonstrate negligence on the part of Appellee, it was unnecessary for the court to consider the defenses of contributory negligence or assumption of risk. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that landlords generally have limited liability for injuries resulting from conditions in common areas that are open and obvious to a tenant at the time of lease, unless a statute or explicit lease term dictates otherwise. It highlights the importance of precise language in lease agreements regarding safety features and places a burden on tenants to be aware of and accept the conditions of the premises as they exist. The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will not readily imply duties upon landlords beyond those explicitly mandated by law or contract, particularly when the tenant has knowledge of the condition.
