Opinion ID: 1668092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Directed Verdict For Alene Buettner

Text: Chamber's complaint alleged Buettner had a duty to rent the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the protection of members of the public invited on the premises by the tenant; that Buettner negligently violated this duty owed to Terry Chambers who was visiting Buettner's tenants on the night of the fire. The general rule of law with respect to guests of tenants is well settled. The landlord, in the absence of a covenant to repair, is liable only for latent defects, known to him at the time of the leasing, and which are concealed from the tenant. Davenport v. Bonner, 275 Ala. 131, 152 So.2d 678 (1963). There was no proof in this case either that Buettner had agreed to make any needed repairs to the premises, a part of which were rented to Chambers' hosts on the fateful occasion, or that Buettner knew of and concealed any latent defect in the premises relating to the electrical system. Chambers claims Buettner's liability can be properly bottomed on the rule of law with respect to injury to strangers caused by a defect in rented premises as expressed in Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. v. Traylor. 239 Ala. 497, 195 So. 724 (1940). The instant case clearly is within the ambit of the rule of liability of landlord to tenant and his privies rather than the rule of liability of landlord to strangers. Chambers further asserts that she was entitled to have her case submitted to the jury on the theory that the offending conduit ran to a panel box which served a union hall in the premises; that the conduit and panel box therefore were not part of the premises rented to Logan and Holmes (tenants of Buettner and invitors of decedent Chambers) hence in the exercise of reasonable care Buettner could and should have discovered the defect or insufficiency in the grounding of the conduit and owed a duty to decedent Chambers to correct any defect or insufficiency. This theory must fail even if we assume, arguendo, that any defect or insufficiency present was a dangerous condition such as would invoke the rule set out in Pearce v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 211 Ala. 639, 101 So. 585 (1924). The rule as established in that case is also embodied in Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 361 (1965): A possessor of land who leases a part thereof and retains in his control any other part which is necessary to the safe use of the leased part, is subject to liability to his lessee and others lawfully upon the land with the consent of the lessee or a sublessee for physical harm caused by a dangerous condition upon that part of the land retained in the lessor's control, if the lessor by the exercise of reasonable care (a) could have discovered the condition and the risk involved, and (b) could have made the condition safe. The two principal reasons the theory advanced by Chambers, last referred to, will not operate under the rule set out in the Restatement to permit a jury to pass on the liability of Buettner to Chambers are: (A) There was no evidence that Buettner retained control over that portion of the premises where the conduit was located that may have been insufficiently grounded. (B) There was no evidence that Buettner could have discovered the condition and the risk involved. As to B some evidence would be necessary which showed at least a rudimentary knowledge on the part of Buettner of proper methods of electrical wiring systems, grounding etc. so that any discoverable condition that existed would have alerted him to a risk of physical harm to anyone lawfully on the premises. As is well known, a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence to entitle the claim for relief to be submitted to the jury for decision.    If a trial judge decides there is not a scintilla of evidence upon which the jury could reasonably reach a verdict    he can direct the verdict without submitting the credibility of the witnesses to the jury if their testimony is uncontradicted and unimpeached.    Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor, 293 Ala. 484, 306 So.2d 236 (1975). The trial and appellate courts must view the evidence in the most favorable light to the party against whom the motion was made. Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor, supra; 5A Moore's Federal Practice, 50.02[1], at 2325 (1975); in this case in the most favorable light to Chambers. Thus viewed the evidence was not sufficient to amount to a scintilla upon which the jury could reasonably reach a verdict against either the Power Board or Buettner.