Noebel v. Housing Authority
146 Conn. 197, 1959 Conn. LEXIS 145, 148 A.2d 766 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's duty to maintain common areas in a reasonably safe condition does not extend to preventing harm that is not reasonably foreseeable, such as an injury resulting from a tenant's deliberate and misjudged act of jumping over a known, visible barrier.
Facts:
- The defendant housing authority managed a development where plaintiff Gladwin was a tenant.
- The authority permitted tenants to erect fences in the common area behind their apartments.
- Another tenant, Donald Perry, had erected a low fence made of wooden stakes and a rubber-covered wire, which had been in place for over a year.
- Gladwin was fully aware of the fence's existence, having seen it many times.
- The housing authority's manager, Carl Andersen, had also seen the fence on several occasions but had not ordered its removal.
- On November 16, 1953, Gladwin was told her son was being beaten up nearby.
- In an agitated state, Gladwin ran to help her son, taking a shortcut across the common area.
- Despite seeing the fence, Gladwin attempted to jump over it, caught her foot on the wire, fell, and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Gladwin, sued the defendant housing authority and its manager in a trial court on counts of negligence and nuisance.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff upon the jury's verdict.
- The defendants moved to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but the trial court denied these motions.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to 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 breach the duty to maintain common areas in a reasonably safe condition by failing to remove a low wire fence that causes injury only when a tenant, who is fully aware of its existence, deliberately attempts to jump over it in haste?
Opinions:
Majority - Baldwin, J.
No. A landlord does not breach the duty of reasonable care by failing to guard against harms that are not reasonably foreseeable. The ultimate test of a landlord's duty is whether an ordinarily prudent person in the landlord's position would anticipate that harm of the general nature suffered was likely to result. Here, the plaintiff was well aware of the fence, saw it immediately before her fall, and made a deliberate choice to jump over it in her haste. It is unreasonable as a matter of law to charge the defendants with foreseeing that a tenant would deliberately attempt to jump a known barrier and misjudge their own ability, causing injury. The harm was too remote to be reasonably foreseeable, thus there was no breach of duty.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the foreseeability standard in premises liability law, particularly concerning a landlord's duty of care. It establishes that a landlord is not an insurer of a tenant's safety against all possible harms. The ruling emphasizes that a plaintiff's own deliberate actions and knowledge of a static condition can render the resulting harm unforeseeable from the landlord's perspective, thereby precluding liability. This precedent is significant for limiting a landlord's duty where an injury stems not from a hidden defect or inherently dangerous condition, but from a tenant's rash or intentional interaction with a known, visible object.
