Niman v. Plaza House, Inc.
471 S.W.2d 207 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, a landlord retains exclusive legal control over an entire heating system, including operative fixtures like radiators and pipes located within a tenant's apartment, even if the tenant can regulate temperature using a provided control knob. A tenant's ability to use an appliance as intended does not negate the landlord's overall control of the integrated system.
Facts:
- Louis and Esther Niman were tenants in a fifth-floor apartment owned by Plaza House, Inc. and managed by Haas.
- The apartment building was equipped with a central hot-water heating system, which the defendants owned, operated, and maintained.
- Tenants, including the Nimans, had previously complained about the inability to properly regulate heat, leading the defendants to install new control valves on the radiators.
- The radiator in the Nimans' bedroom was concealed by a metal cover, with only a knob protruding for tenants to adjust the flow of hot water and thus the room temperature.
- One morning, a hidden 'ell fitting' on the radiator pipe ruptured, causing the Nimans' apartment to flood with hot water and steam.
- Esther Niman awoke to the intense heat and steam, and when her feet touched the floor, she slipped on the hot water and slime, fell, and was severely injured.
- The ruptured fitting was part of the internal mechanism of the heating system, not directly accessible to the Nimans, and was located behind the radiator's metal cover.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis and Esther Niman sued Plaza House, Inc. and Haas in a Missouri trial court, seeking damages for personal injury and property loss under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the Nimans for a total of $25,800.
- The defendants, Plaza House, Inc. and Haas, appealed the judgment directly to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
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 retain sufficient exclusive control over a building's heating system for the purposes of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine when a tenant has the ability to regulate the temperature in their apartment by turning a control knob on a radiator?
Opinions:
Majority - Morgan, Judge.
Yes, the landlord retains exclusive control over the heating system for res ipsa loquitur purposes. The court reasoned that there is a critical distinction between a tenant's 'use' of an appliance and the landlord's 'control' of the underlying system. The defendants owned, managed, and maintained the entire heating system, including the boilers, pipes, and the radiator itself. The Nimans' ability to turn a knob to regulate temperature was merely using the system as intended, akin to operating a mechanical thermostat, and did not divest the defendants of their right of control over the integrated system. Citing precedent, the court affirmed that integrated building systems like plumbing and heating remain under the landlord's control, as tenants are not expected to maintain or repair them. Therefore, because the instrumentality that failed—the pipe fitting—was part of the system under the defendants' exclusive right of control, submitting the case on a res ipsa loquitur theory was proper.
Dissenting - Donnelly, Justice
No, the landlord did not retain exclusive control for res ipsa loquitur purposes. The dissent argued that because the Nimans could control the circulation of hot water through their radiator by using the shut-off valve, there was a 'division of control' over the instrumentality that caused the injury. When control is divided, it is just as probable that the injury resulted from an act of the plaintiffs as from an act of the defendants, which defeats the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. The dissent contended that the majority improperly transferred the broader concept of 'control' from general landlord-tenant duty cases to the stricter 'exclusive control' requirement specific to res ipsa loquitur.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'exclusive control' element of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine within the landlord-tenant relationship. It establishes that a landlord's control over an integrated building system is not defeated simply because a tenant has access to a user interface, such as a valve or thermostat. This lowers the barrier for tenants injured by latent defects in essential building systems to bring a negligence claim, shifting the evidentiary burden to the landlord, who possesses superior knowledge and is responsible for maintenance. The ruling reinforces the distinction between a tenant's 'use' of a provided fixture and the landlord's 'control' over the complex, underlying infrastructure.
