McKeon v. Cutter

Landlord and Tenant — Repair of Water Pipes — Admission. The rule that the letting of a house does not imply that it is fit, or will continue fit, for the purposes for which it is let, applies equally to the case of the letting of several rooms in a tenement house, if they pass out of the control of the landlord into the exclusive possession of the tenant. Where the property of a tenant of several rooms in a tenement house was injured by water leaking from the pipes therein, the only use of which pipes was to supply water to such rooms, it was held that the tenant could not maintain an action against the landlord for such injuries. The making repairs by a landlord, at the request of the tenant, upon the water pipes in the latter’s tenement, is a gratuitous act upon the part of the landlord, and does not impose any liability upon him.

Tort for injury to the plaintiff’s goods, caused by the leaking of water from pipes wdiich the plaintiff contended the defendant was bound to keep in repair, but had negligently suffered to be out of repair. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bond, J., it appeared that the plaintiff hired, as tenant at will, a flat or tenement of six rooms and a bath-room in the defendant’s house in Boston, which house contained four separate tenements; that the plaintiff’s tenement was supplied with cold water by a pipe leading thereto from the street main, and with hot water from a tank in the attic, from which water was conducted down to the top of the hot-water boiler back of the range of the plaintiff’s kitchen; that there was no other use made of the water pipes in the plaintiff’s tenement, except to supply water to the plaintiff's tenement, and that the leaks complained of occurred in the pipes in the plaintiff’s tenement. It appeared that while the plaintiff and his wife were temporarily absent a leak occurred in the pipe at the top of the bathroom, aiid the escaping water injured the plaintiff’s carpet; that on the return of the plaintiff’s wife she was informed that the plaintiff’s servant, who had remained in the tenement, had- sent to the defendant’s agent to have the pipe repaired, and that on the next day the defendant’s agent came and shut off the water and stopped the leaking; that the next week the hot-water pipe sprang a leak, and water began to drop therefrom slowly on to the kitchen floor; that the plaintiff’s wife then sent word to the defendant’s agent again to come and repair this pipe, and the agent sent word that he would have his plumber attend to it as soon as he could, but did not say when; that on the second day the plaintiff’s wife sent for a plumber herself, and had the repairs made, as the defendant’s plumber did not come; that after the repairs had been made, the agent came with two men, but was informed that the repairs had been made; that the damage done, especially to rugs and carpets, was considerable ; and that the pipe where the last mentioned leak occurred was poor and worn out. The plaintiff contended that the above evidence, and the condition of the pipe, a piece of which was shown to the jury, showed negligence on the part of the defendant in allowing it to remain in that condition. The court ruled, at the request of the defendant, that the action could not be maintained, and directed a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.