Mikaloros v. Stamatouras

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mikaloros v. Stamatouras

206 N.E.2d 62, 348 Mass. 700, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 874

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 206 N.E.2d 62 (Mikaloros v. Stamatouras) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mikaloros v. Stamatouras, 206 N.E.2d 62, 348 Mass. 700, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 874 (Mass. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

*701 Spiegel, J.

TMs is an action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff from a fall in the defendant’s house. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the case is here on the defendant’s exception to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict.

We state the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff was the social guest of the wife of the defendant’s tenant, who occupied an apartment on the first floor of a two family house owned by the defendant, who occupied the second floor apartment. In the course of her visit with the tenant’s wife, the plaintiff also visited the defendant’s mother-in-law in the second floor apartment. Eeturning to the first floor apartment at about 9:30 p.m. the plaintiff descended a back stairway leading to a hallway adjacent to the first floor apartment. The area was partly under new construction. It was dark at the foot of the stairs and in the hallway. From the last step, she “went to step on the hall” floor. She “thought there was another step and . . . [her] foot twisted and . . . [she] fell.” At the time of the creation of the tenancy and thereafter, the hallway was customarily illuminated at night by a light maintained by the defendant. TMs hallway was used by the tenant and the defendant.

From this evidence the jury could find that the hallway was a common passageway over wMch the defendant retained control; that the defendant had impliedly undertaken as a part of the letting to keep the hallway lighted and had negligently failed to perform this obligation; that the plaintiff was no longer the social guest of the defendant at the time of the accident, but the guest of the tenant’s wife; and that there was a causal connection between the failure to light the hallway and the injury. Coan v. Adams, 332 Mass. 654, 656-657. Denny v. Burbeck, 333 Mass. 310, 312. Sullivan v. Hamacher, 339 Mass. 190, 193-195. Accordingly, there was no error in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*701 Spiegel, J.

TMs is an action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff from a fall in the defendant’s house. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the case is here on the defendant’s exception to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict.

We state the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff was the social guest of the wife of the defendant’s tenant, who occupied an apartment on the first floor of a two family house owned by the defendant, who occupied the second floor apartment. In the course of her visit with the tenant’s wife, the plaintiff also visited the defendant’s mother-in-law in the second floor apartment. Eeturning to the first floor apartment at about 9:30 p.m. the plaintiff descended a back stairway leading to a hallway adjacent to the first floor apartment. The area was partly under new construction. It was dark at the foot of the stairs and in the hallway. From the last step, she “went to step on the hall” floor. She “thought there was another step and . . . [her] foot twisted and . . . [she] fell.” At the time of the creation of the tenancy and thereafter, the hallway was customarily illuminated at night by a light maintained by the defendant. TMs hallway was used by the tenant and the defendant.

From this evidence the jury could find that the hallway was a common passageway over wMch the defendant retained control; that the defendant had impliedly undertaken as a part of the letting to keep the hallway lighted and had negligently failed to perform this obligation; that the plaintiff was no longer the social guest of the defendant at the time of the accident, but the guest of the tenant’s wife; and that there was a causal connection between the failure to light the hallway and the injury. Coan v. Adams, 332 Mass. 654, 656-657. Denny v. Burbeck, 333 Mass. 310, 312. Sullivan v. Hamacher, 339 Mass. 190, 193-195. Accordingly, there was no error in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 N.E.2d 62, 348 Mass. 700, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mikaloros-v-stamatouras-mass-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack