Court Opinion

ID: 9745165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:39:17.587007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.101495
License: Public Domain

GEORGE J. MORAN, J., dissenting: I realize that plaster is interior and also that normally the repair of plaster would be an interior repair which would have been the obligation of the tenant to perform. However, if the tenant claimed that the condition of the plaster on the ceiling was because of the landlord’s failure to maintain the interior structure properly, it would take evidence to settle this dispute. In the present case, Jennie Hardy sued Montgomery Ward claiming that huge chunks of plaster fell upon her causing her injuries. Montgomery Ward in turn sued L. M. & O. Motor Company, claiming that the ceiling collapsed and that the collapse was caused by L. M. & O. Motor Company’s failure to maintain the premises in a safe and tenantable condition. If we take this allegation as true, and in my opinion we must do this for the purposes of deciding L. M. & O. Motor Company’s motion, we must assume that the whole ceiling fell down, including the plaster, and if the evidence showed this was true, it would seem to me that there would be an obligation on the part of the landlord to indemnify as provided in Paragraph 35 of the lease. Then too, if the evidence showed that a structural defect caused the plaster to fall, the tenant would be entitled to recover under the indemnification clause of Pararaph 35 of the lease, even though it is stated in the lease that the tenant must make interior non-structural repairs. On a motion to dismiss, all facts well pleaded must be taken as true and the complaint must not be dismissed unless it appears from the pleadings that in no event is there any possibility of recovery. Miller v. Dewitt, 37 Ill.2d 273 at 287.