Thompson v. Frankus
1955 Me. LEXIS 22, 151 Me. 54, 115 A.2d 718 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury may reasonably infer that a landlord's negligence was the proximate cause of an injury from circumstantial evidence, even if the injured party cannot testify as to the specific mechanism of the accident.
Facts:
- Defendant, Frankus, was a landlord who retained control over a common stairway in her building.
- The linoleum stair covering on this stairway was badly torn, loose, and full of holes, a condition known to Frankus.
- The stairway was unlighted.
- The plaintiff wife, Thompson, was an invitee of a tenant seeking to leave the building.
- This stairway was the only means of egress available to Thompson.
- Thompson lit a match to illuminate her path before stepping from a stair covered with the defective linoleum.
- While proceeding down the stairs, Thompson stumbled or tripped and fell, resulting in injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, husband and wife Thompson, sued the defendant landlord, Frankus, in a state trial court.
- An initial jury trial resulted in verdicts for the plaintiffs.
- The defendant's motion for a new trial was granted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine due to improper jury instructions regarding a landlord's duty to light common stairways.
- The case was retried in the trial court.
- At the close of evidence in the second trial, the presiding justice directed verdicts for the defendant, Frankus.
- The plaintiffs, the Thompsons, appealed the directed verdicts to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
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 sufficient evidence exist for a jury to reasonably infer that a landlord's negligence in maintaining a common stairway was the proximate cause of an invitee's injury, even when the invitee cannot specifically recall what caused her to fall?
Opinions:
Majority - Webber, J.
Yes. Sufficient evidence exists for the case to be submitted to a jury. A landlord owes a duty to tenants and their invitees to exercise ordinary care to keep common areas, such as stairways, in a reasonably safe state of repair from wear and decay. The evidence of the torn, loose linoleum and the complete absence of lighting was sufficient for a jury to find that the defendant landlord breached this duty. Furthermore, a jury can find proximate cause through reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence; it is not required that the plaintiff testify as to the specific cause of her fall. Given the known hazardous condition of the stairs, a jury could reasonably infer that the plaintiff tripped because of the defects. Finally, the question of the plaintiff's contributory negligence is also for the jury, which can consider factors like the urgency of her need to leave and the lack of alternative exits in assessing whether her actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the majority rule that landlords have a duty to maintain common areas in a reasonably safe condition by repairing defects caused by wear and tear. More significantly, the case establishes that proximate cause can be proven by circumstantial evidence, allowing a jury to draw a reasonable inference of causation. This prevents a directed verdict against a plaintiff who, due to the suddenness of an accident, cannot recall the precise detail that caused their injury. The ruling protects plaintiffs from being non-suited simply due to a memory lapse, thereby lowering a potential evidentiary barrier in negligence cases involving hazardous conditions.
