Rush v. Commercial Realty Co.

New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals · Torts

TortsLandlord liabilityNegligenceContributory negligenceAssumption of risklandlord controlcommon areaprivy

Facts

The plaintiffs were tenants of the defendant, which controlled their house, an adjoining house, and a detached privy provided for the use of both houses. Mrs. Rush entered the privy and fell through the floor or a trap door, dropping about nine feet into the accumulation below and needing a ladder to be removed. The defendant disputed the existence of any pit and claimed the floor was only about nine inches above solid ground, creating factual disputes for the jury. Taking the evidence most favorably to the plaintiffs, the privy was under the landlord's control for tenants' general use and had a floor in defective condition due to negligent maintenance.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a nonsuit or direct a verdict for the landlord where a tenant was injured using a landlord-controlled privy maintained for common use. More specifically, the question was whether the evidence required judgment for the defendant on duty, assumption of risk, or contributory negligence.

Rule

When a landlord retains control over a building or facility for the general use of tenants and maintains it, the landlord owes a duty of reasonable care in maintenance. If there is evidence of a defective condition attributable to negligent maintenance and resulting injury, the case goes to the jury; a tenant's use of necessary facilities furnished by the landlord is not assumption of risk as a matter of law, and contributory negligence in using a visibly defective floor is ordinarily a jury question depending on the conditions and the tenant's knowledge or what she should have known.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez rents an apartment in Newark, New Jersey, from Maple Crest Properties. The building has a rear washroom used by all four tenants, and Maple Crest keeps the only key and sends its caretaker to clean it. While Nina is using the washroom, a rotted section of the wooden floor collapses beneath her and she is injured.

If Maple Crest moves for a directed verdict arguing it owed Nina no duty because the washroom was outside her apartment, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when the landlord retains control over a building or facility for the general use of tenants and maintains it, the landlord owes a duty of reasonable care in maintenance. Here, the washroom is a common-use facility under the landlord's control, so lack of duty is not a proper basis for a directed verdict. (Derived from Rush v. Commercial Realty Co. (n.d.).)