Thomas Martinez v. Carlos Quinones (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This case came on for trial before the court on January 13, 2011.   The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff Thomas Martinez was a tenant of the defendant Carlos Quiniones and occupied the second floor of a two-floor property owned by said defendant at 187 Ferry Street in New Haven.   The defendant lived in the basement.

The plaintiff testified that on the night of December 8, 2007 “a little bit of snow fell, but it was a little bit and then it stopped.”   He claimed, further, that he inquired of the landlord's daughter “whether there was any salt for me to throw on there because they had said on the news that night that it was going to snow.”   The landlord's daughter did not testify.   Also the plaintiff testified that after falling he called to his wife because he couldn't get up and that she helped him up.   Nor did his wife testify.   Nor were any weather reports offered in evidence with respect to the weather on the morning of December 9, 2007 either before or after 9:00-9:30 am when the plaintiff already fell on the front steps.

It is the law of this state, as elsewhere, that “the landlord who rents [an apartment] in his building to various tenants, reserving control of the common approaches, is obligated to use reasonable care to keep these approaches reasonably safe for use of the tenants.”  Rearden v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383, 386 (1925).

“The law requires that a landlord's duty owed to tenants as well as other invitees upon his property is to exercise reasonable diligence in removing or placing salt on dangerous accumulations of snow and/or ice, he may, however, await the end of a storm and a reasonable time thereafter before removing ice and snow from outside walks and steps.”   This is so because “To require a landlord ․ to keep walks and steps clear ․ while a storm is in progress inexpedient and impractical.”  Umstead v. G.R. Realty, 123 Conn.App. 73, 81, (2010).

The state of the evidence with respect to when the snow began to fall and when the snow stopped falling, what the temperature was before, during or after the snow fell is nowhere to be found in the plaintiff's case or the defendant's case.   Therefore, the court has no basis for concluding whether snow and ice were present on the steps long enough for the defendant to have had notice of its presence and to have removed it or treated it with salt.

The defendant testified that he owned the property for thirteen years and that he resided with his daughter and a friend who had “left and found his own apartment” by the time he testified.   He was employed delivering newspapers seven days per week.   He worked from “2:00 in the morning to about 6 or 6:30.”

Mr. Quinones was asked the following question by his attorney:

Q. Could you tell the court in the thirteen years that you own the property what your procedure is for keeping the tenants safe?

A. Before I go to work in the morning at 2 o'clock in the morning, before I leave if I know its going to snow I throw salt on the sidewalks, on the stairs and the walkways to where the garbage is.

Q. How long have you been doing that?

A. Since I bought the house.

Q. And you testified about where the salt and sand and shovel are kept?

A. Inside the door.

Q. Mr. Quinones was that your practice on December 9, 2007?

A. That day and all the days before that I always do the same thing when the winter comes.

Plaintiff's exhibit 1 is a close up view of the front stairs and reveal well constructed wooden stairs leading to the front door and wooden railings on each side extending from the house to the bottom of the staircase.

The plaintiff, claiming the icy condition of the stairs, testified as follows on pages 22 and 23 of the transcript:

Q. And you were leaving to take the trash out, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you're wearing flip-flops;  correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have garbage bags in each hand;  correct?

A. Yes, that's correct in each hand.

Q. Mr. Martinez, there's a railing there at that residence isn't there?

Q. Were you holding the railing at all?

A. No, because I had a bag of garbage in each hand and as I started to fall, I tried to sustain myself but I couldn't I was already falling.

Defendant's answer contains a special defense of contributory negligence.   The court finds that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in not utilizing the handrails while attempting to descend the staircase with bags of garbage in each hand rather than descending with one hand free even if it meant that two trips were required to the garbage can while holding on to the railing with the other hand.

Furthermore, the court finds that the defendant's testimony with respect to having placed salt on the steps and porch landing prior to the plaintiff's fall worthy of belief.

Judgment may enter for the defendant.

Skolnick, J.T.R.

Skolnick, David W., J.T.R.