Lexplug logoLexplug

Putnam v. Stout

New York Court of Appeals
345 N.E.2d 319, 381 N.Y.S.2d 848, 38 N.Y.2d 607 (1976)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landlord who covenants in a lease to keep the premises in repair is subject to tort liability for physical harm caused to the tenant and others lawfully on the land by a dangerous condition that the landlord negligently fails to remedy.


Facts:

  • Richard Steigler leased a supermarket, adjoining driveway, and parking lot to Grand Union.
  • The lease agreement required Steigler, the landlord, to make all necessary repairs, but also permitted Grand Union, the tenant, to make repairs at Steigler's expense if Steigler failed to do so.
  • Putnam, a customer at the Grand Union, was leaving the store to get to her car in a rear lot.
  • The sidewalk leading to the lot was blocked by cartons and rocks, forcing Putnam to walk in the adjacent driveway.
  • Putnam's shoe became caught in a large hole in the driveway's blacktop, causing her to fall and sustain serious injuries.
  • The hole was approximately 10 inches in diameter and 2-4 inches deep, and the surrounding area was visibly rutted and cracked.
  • Putnam had observed the driveway's deteriorated condition 10 to 14 days prior to her fall.
  • Approximately two and a half months before the accident, Steigler had hired a contractor to repair the adjoining parking lot but not the driveway.

Procedural Posture:

  • Putnam sued Grand Union (lessee) and Steigler's estate (lessor) in a trial court for negligence.
  • Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Putnam, awarding damages of $125,000.
  • The jury apportioned liability as 75% against the Steigler estate and 25% against Grand Union.
  • Both defendants appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
  • The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, with two justices dissenting.
  • Both Grand Union and Steigler's estate were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.

Locked

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 lessor's covenant to keep leased premises in good repair impose tort liability upon the lessor for physical harm sustained by a third party lawfully on the premises, caused by a condition of disrepair?


Opinions:

Majority - Gabrielli, J.

Yes. A lessor's covenant to keep premises in repair imposes tort liability for injuries to third parties lawfully on the land. This decision explicitly overrules the precedent set in Cullings v. Goetz, which held that a covenant to repair did not create tort liability. The court found that the rationales supporting the old rule, such as lack of control and privity of contract, are outdated and no longer serve the interests of justice. Modern tort law has moved away from the rigid privity doctrine, as established in cases like MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. The court adopted the modern trend as formulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 357, which holds a landlord liable where they have contracted to make repairs, the disrepair creates an unreasonable risk, and the landlord fails to exercise reasonable care to perform the contract. Public policy supports this rule, as a landlord's promise to repair often induces the tenant to forgo making repairs, and the landlord, who benefits financially from the lease and retains a reversionary interest, should bear responsibility for the property's safety.



Analysis:

This decision represents a significant shift in New York's landlord-tenant tort law, explicitly overturning the long-standing precedent of Cullings v. Goetz. By adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 357, the court aligned New York with the modern majority rule, which bases landlord liability on the breach of a contractual duty to repair rather than on outdated concepts of possession and control. The ruling effectively expands the scope of a landlord's duty, recognizing that a covenant to repair is not merely a contractual obligation to the tenant but a basis for tort liability to foreseeable third parties. This change simplifies the analysis in future cases, focusing it on the elements of the Restatement test rather than complex and often fictional distinctions about control and right of entry.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Putnam v. Stout (1976) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Putnam v. Stout