Sargent v. Ross
113 N.H. 388 (1973)
Rule of Law:
A landlord owes a general duty of reasonable care to tenants and their lawful visitors, and is liable for injuries caused by a failure to exercise such care. The traditional common law rule granting landlords immunity from tort liability is abolished.
Facts:
- The defendant owned a residential building where she lived on the ground floor.
- The defendant's son and daughter-in-law rented the second-story apartment from her.
- Approximately eight years before the incident, the defendant had an outdoor stairway built to service the second-story apartment.
- The stairway was dangerously steep and the railing was insufficient to prevent a fall.
- The defendant's daughter-in-law regularly provided babysitting services for the plaintiff's four-year-old daughter.
- While under the care of the daughter-in-law at the apartment, the plaintiff's daughter fell to her death from the outdoor stairway.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (mother of the deceased child) brought a tort action against the defendant landlord for negligent construction and maintenance in the trial court.
- The plaintiff also sued the defendant's daughter-in-law for negligent supervision.
- A jury trial was held.
- The jury returned a verdict for the daughter-in-law, but found in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant landlord.
- The defendant landlord moved for a nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., and to have the verdict set aside.
- The trial court denied all of the defendant's motions.
- The defendant landlord appealed the denial of her motions to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
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 general duty of reasonable care to tenants and their guests for foreseeable injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the leased premises, thereby abolishing the traditional rule of landlord tort immunity and its exceptions?
Opinions:
Majority - Renison, C.J.
Yes, a landlord owes a general duty of reasonable care. The court holds that landlords must exercise reasonable care not to subject others to an unreasonable risk of harm, thereby discarding the old common law rule of landlord tort immunity. The court reasoned that the traditional rule, rooted in agrarian society and the doctrine of 'caveat lessee,' is an outdated and illogical anomaly in modern tort law. This immunity has been eroded by numerous exceptions (e.g., control, hidden dangers, public use) that are often illogical and create arbitrary results. The court concluded that extending the general principles of negligence to landlords is a natural evolution of the law, consistent with the abrogation of other tort immunities and the court's prior decision in Kline v. Burns, which established an implied warranty of habitability. Factors such as control are no longer dispositive but are relevant only to determining the foreseeability and unreasonableness of the risk.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered landlord-tenant law by replacing a property-based rule of tort immunity with a modern negligence standard. By abolishing the 'caveat lessee' doctrine in tort, the case shifted the legal focus from determining 'control' over the premises to assessing whether the landlord acted with reasonable care under all circumstances. This change significantly increases potential liability for landlords, creating a stronger incentive for them to maintain safe premises for tenants and their guests. The ruling aligns landlord liability with general principles of tort law, reflecting a broader judicial trend of eliminating special immunities.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Sargent v. Ross (1973)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"