Rush v. Commercial Realty Co.
145 A. 476, 7 N.J. Misc. 337, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 331 (1929)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tenant's use of a necessary, landlord-provided common area, even with knowledge of its defective condition, does not constitute assumption of risk or contributory negligence as a matter of law; rather, the reasonableness of the tenant's conduct is a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs, the Rushes, were tenants of the defendant landlord.
- The defendant controlled the plaintiffs' house, an adjoining house, and a detached privy for the shared use of both.
- Mrs. Rush, having a need to use the toilet facilities, went into the shared privy provided by the landlord.
- Upon entering, she fell through a defective floor, dropping approximately nine feet into an accumulation pit below.
- Mrs. Rush had to be extricated from the pit with a ladder.
- The defendant disputed the existence of the pit, claiming the floor was only nine inches above solid ground.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (the Rushes) sued their landlord in a trial court for injuries sustained by Mrs. Rush.
- At trial, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which the trial court denied.
- After all evidence was presented, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court also denied.
- Following a judgment for the plaintiffs, the defendant landlord appealed to a higher court, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to take the case from the jury.
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 tenant who uses a defective but necessary common area controlled by a landlord, with knowledge of the defect, assume the risk or act with contributory negligence as a matter of law, thereby precluding a jury from deciding the landlord's liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A tenant's use of a defective but necessary common facility does not constitute assumption of risk or contributory negligence as a matter of law. A landlord who controls a common area for the use of tenants has a duty of care in its maintenance. The defendant argues that the case should have been dismissed based on the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence. However, Mrs. Rush had no alternative but to use the privy provided by the landlord when 'impelled by the calls of nature.' This lack of choice negates the voluntariness required for assumption of risk, as she was not required to leave the premises to find other facilities. The question of whether it was contributorily negligent for her to step on a floor she knew was in 'bad order' is a question of fact for the jury to resolve based on the conditions and her knowledge of them, not a question of law for the court to decide.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the landlord's duty to maintain common areas and limits the application of affirmative defenses like assumption of risk and contributory negligence. It establishes that when a tenant has no reasonable alternative but to use a defective facility, their conduct in doing so is not negligent as a matter of law. This decision empowers juries to determine the reasonableness of a tenant's actions based on the specific circumstances, particularly the necessity of the action, thereby strengthening tenant protections in premises liability cases.
