Neff v. Keepers

Ohio Court of Appeals

Neff v. Keepers

16 N.E.2d 276, 58 Ohio App. 159, 26 Ohio Law. Abs. 72, 11 Ohio Op. 599, 1937 Ohio App. LEXIS 241

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1937

DocketNo 5230

StatusPublished

This text of 16 N.E.2d 276 (Neff v. Keepers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neff v. Keepers, 16 N.E.2d 276, 58 Ohio App. 159, 26 Ohio Law. Abs. 72, 11 Ohio Op. 599, 1937 Ohio App. LEXIS 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment ol the Court of Common Pleas against her

Plaintiff alleged in her petition that she had been a tenant of the defendant, and during her tenancy she was injured by the giving way of a board in the floor of a hallway of the premises, and that this occurred through the negligence of the defendant in that “the flooring boards were in a rotted condition and were loose and detached and that the defendant knew or should have known with the exercise of ordinary care the condition of the premises, and did negligently permit said nuisance to continue.”

At the trial the evidence disclosed that this hallway was in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff, and that one of the flooring boards broke when she stepped on it There was evidence that an agent or independent contractor had taken this board up a little more than a month previously to place some electric wires thereunder. There is no evidence from which a rational inference could be drawn that the taking up and replacing these boards had anything to do with the breaking of the boards, which was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. That being- true, the interesting question of the liability or non-liability of the landlord resulting from his affirmative action through an agent or independent contractor, during the tenancy, which was principally argued at the bar and in the briefs, is not presented by the record because upon any theory of the evidence and law, such interference must be the proximate cause of the injury for any liability to attach.

We have then a case in which a tenant was injured during her tenancy of premises over which she had exclusive control by reason of a defect developing in such premises. Under such circumstances, the lessor is not liable in the absence of an express warranty oí the sate condition of the premises, or deceit as to their condition. Shinkle v Birney, 68 Oh St 328. Goodall v Deters, 121 Oh St 432.

The court committed no error in sus *73 taming the motion for an instructed verdict and in entering judgment thereon.

The judgment is affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, HAMILTON and MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment ol the Court of Common Pleas against her

Plaintiff alleged in her petition that she had been a tenant of the defendant, and during her tenancy she was injured by the giving way of a board in the floor of a hallway of the premises, and that this occurred through the negligence of the defendant in that “the flooring boards were in a rotted condition and were loose and detached and that the defendant knew or should have known with the exercise of ordinary care the condition of the premises, and did negligently permit said nuisance to continue.”

At the trial the evidence disclosed that this hallway was in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff, and that one of the flooring boards broke when she stepped on it There was evidence that an agent or independent contractor had taken this board up a little more than a month previously to place some electric wires thereunder. There is no evidence from which a rational inference could be drawn that the taking up and replacing these boards had anything to do with the breaking of the boards, which was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. That being- true, the interesting question of the liability or non-liability of the landlord resulting from his affirmative action through an agent or independent contractor, during the tenancy, which was principally argued at the bar and in the briefs, is not presented by the record because upon any theory of the evidence and law, such interference must be the proximate cause of the injury for any liability to attach.

We have then a case in which a tenant was injured during her tenancy of premises over which she had exclusive control by reason of a defect developing in such premises. Under such circumstances, the lessor is not liable in the absence of an express warranty oí the sate condition of the premises, or deceit as to their condition. Shinkle v Birney, 68 Oh St 328. Goodall v Deters, 121 Oh St 432.

The court committed no error in sus *73 taming the motion for an instructed verdict and in entering judgment thereon.

The judgment is affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, HAMILTON and MATTHEWS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.E.2d 276, 58 Ohio App. 159, 26 Ohio Law. Abs. 72, 11 Ohio Op. 599, 1937 Ohio App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neff-v-keepers-ohioctapp-1937.