Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-03-30
THREE REScRlPTS
Handed Down, This Week, by Suss'ce
Whitehouse.

Bennett VS.. Sullivan ct ais. Wh'e-
house, J.
This is an action to recover dam
ages for an injury sustained by the
plaintiff October 13. 1903, by reason OF
the defective condition OF piatiorih
on the defendants premises. one tene-
meat of which was occupied py the
plaintiff as a tenant at will.
1t is a familiar rule, that in the case
of a dwelling house there Is no implied
warranty that it is reasonably tit for
habitation, and no obligation on the
part Of the landlord to make repairs on
the leased premises unless he has
made an express valid agreement SO to
do.
1t satisfactorily appears from the
evidence that the platform in question
was not a part of the plaintiffs tene-
ment but was on a level with and as
signed to the use of the tenement be-
low. 1t was provided with facilities
for hanging out clothes, superior to
those found on the piazza connected
with the plaintiffs tenement. FOR
the accommodation Of the plaintiffs
wife, the defendants agent gave her
permission to use the platform rev
days after they took possession. pro-
vided the tenant below consented. Ac-
cording to the allegations in the writ
and the testimony introduced by the
plaintiff, the defendants general
agreement ito fix up the tenement
was made as a part of the original
contract and before the plaintir ell
tered into the occupation of the prem
Uses.
The use of this platform was not
then in contemplation of the parties as
one of the privileges pertaining to the
tenement hired by the plaintiff. Inc
agreement of the defendants agent 10
repair the middle tenement. II any was
made by him, cannot be construed 10
include repairs on the platform for 1t
was not a part of the plaintiffs tene-
ment: nor can it be presumed that the
plaintiff was induced to hire it by con-
siderations not present to the mind OF
either party.
The subsequent promise to repair, If
made, as claimed by the plaintiff. was
no part of the original contract OF mir
ing and did not operate as an induce
ment for the plaintiff to take the
tenement 1t is not claimed that the
plaintiff threatened to quit if no re-
pairs were made. The defendants
were then under no legal obligation to
make repairs upon this platform, and
any promise to do SO, if made, was
without consideration.
Furthermore, as before stated the
common law rule of caveat emptor is
still in force in this State and applies
to a lease as we'll as the sale of prop
erty. The owner of private property
owes to the prospective lessee no duty
to exercise ordinary care to ascertain
and apprise him of unknown defects in
the property to be leased, where a
prospective lessee has equal opportun-
ity to ascertain the defects. In the
case at bar. neither the defendant nor
his agent had any special knowledge
Of the defective condition of the rail-
ing around the platform. The plaintiff
and his wife had frequent occasion to
use it and better opportunity than
the defendants or their agent to dis
cover the actual condition of the plat
form and the railing. The plaintiff
admits that he "must have known"
it. No repairs were made on this
platform prior to the accident. Yet
the plaintiff continued in the occupa-
ton of the tenement and in the use of
this platform. 1t is the opinion of the
court that upon this state of the law
and the facts the defendants are not
liable to the plaintiff.
Judgment for the defendants.