Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/299/299mass485.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:30:00+00:00

Document:
JACOB RUDOMEN vs. M. GREEN.
Negligence, In making repairs, Contributory. Landlord and Tenant, Landlord's liability to tenant, Repairs.
Evidence that the landlord of an apartment let to a tenant at will fixed a leak in the apartment which was causing damage in another apartment and then told the tenant that he had finished his work and that "everything was O.K.," but left a board with protruding nails on the floor upon which the tenant stepped and thereby was injured, warranted a finding that the landlord was negligent and did not require a finding that the tenant was guilty of contributory negligence, and warranted recovery by the tenant from the landlord in tort.
TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated June 13, 1933.
I. Bernstein, for the plaintiff.
cabinet drawers that were piled up one on top of the other on the kitchen floor, striking his groin against that, and as he was falling, he struck his head and shoulders against the rear door located in the kitchen, opposite to the entrance door to the kitchen, receiving substantial injuries. The part of the stick that was facing upward and from which the nails were protruding was unpainted hard wood and the other side was painted . . . the same color as the kitchen cabinet. On the next rent day the defendant said to the plaintiff that it was supposed to have been cleaned up and the way he left it he figured the janitor was going to come up and clean everything up there after they were through." At the close of the direct examination of the plaintiff the trial judge granted a written motion by the defendant for a directed verdict in his favor. The exceptions of the plaintiff bring the case here.
The evidence warranted a finding that the defendant, the owner of the building and the landlord of the plaintiff, having discovered a defect in the tenement occupied by the plaintiff, undertook to put it in repair with his own hands and the assistance of a helper, and that on leaving the apartment he said to the plaintiff that the work was completed and everything was all right, whereas, in truth, material was carelessly placed on the floor which rendered it dangerous for the tenant to step into the room. The finding was permissible that the defendant as landlord undertook voluntarily to make repairs and that, when they were finished, he notified the tenant, invited him to make use of the tenement, and assured him that he might do so with safety. In these circumstances, if the tenement was unsafe by reason of want of ordinary care and skill on the part of the defendant, and the tenant sustained personal injuries thereby, he may recover compensation from the defendant. That principle is the established law. Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477, 479. Riley v. Lissner, 160 Mass. 330. Buldra v. Henin, 212 Mass. 275, 278. Thomas v. Lane, 221 Mass. 447, 448, 449. Marks v. Nambil Realty Co. Inc. 245 N.Y. 256, 258. Kirshenbaum v.
General Outdoor Advertising Co. Inc. 258 N.Y. 489, 496. That principle is applicable to the evidence in the case at bar. It entitled the plaintiff to go to the jury.
The burden of proving contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff rested upon the defendant. The plaintiff was presumed to be in the exercise of due care. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 85. It could not rightly have been ruled as matter of law that the plaintiff contributed to his injury by his negligence.
There was error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant. The case ought to have been submitted to the jury.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 85