The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-01
LANDLORD NEED NOT REPAIR FOR
 HIS TENANTS
Some Unique Questions De- termined by Common
 Pleas Court

In an action brought by Arthur Stead against Salvatore Corso, tried last week in the Common Pleas court, in which action the plaintiff claimed $2.OOO damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall from rear porch of the defendants Eouse in which the plaintiff was tenant, the court has rendered judgment for -ne defendant.
 The case contains some interesting questions of law as to the rights and duties of landlord and tenants. The property of the defendant is located at 1908 Main street. The plaintiff occupied a flat over the fruit store conducted by the defendant. On July 1st of last yer.r, MT. Stead, with the. assistance of another person, was endeavoring to stretch a clothes line, which ran from a porch back of the tenement which he occupied. While they were in the act of drawing the clothes line, they pressed against the railing on the outside of the porch ing MT. Stead to the pavement of the back yard below. He was quite severely injured and was for some time a patient at St. Vincent's Hos- pital. On his recovery, he brought suit against MT. Corso, the owner of was effectively constructed and that the defendant as the landlord knew it or ought to have known it.
 The defendant set up three de- lenses, namely that the porch so sur- rounded by the railing in question was a part of the plaintiffs tenement and that there was no duty owing by the landlord to the tenant to keep it in repair. He furthermore claimed that the railing was constructed by skilled carpenters and that therefore he had exercised all the care that ne could exercise and lastly that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in pressing against the railing with another person and tha. it ought to have been apparent to the plaintiff that the railing was not designed to stand any extraordinary pressure.
 Judge Scott in his memorandum of deciSEH sustains the contentious of the defendant. He finds in the first place that the porch and railing in question were a part of the premises leased to the plaintiff and that under the law of the state the landlord is under no obligation to the tenant to keep the same in repair and is not responsible for their condition unless there was some express warranty or fraud on his part when he rented the premises. He further finds that the railing which gave away was put up by carpenters of ordinary skill. The judge says in his memorandum, the railing was sufficient to withstand the pressure of one person, but could not sustain the pressure which was put upon it, namely that of two persons pulling on the clothes line. He fur ther holds that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and that while the plaintiff did not know that the railing was not fastened securely enough to withstand the pressure against it it ought to have been ob- vious to a prudent person that there was danger of the railing giving away. The judge says in his mem orandum: "I do not think that the plaintiff exercised ordinary prudence in pressing heavily against the rail, with another, or even alone, without knowing how the rail was fastened"