Johnston v. Ross

Whether the defendant breached a duty created by the applicable housing code that required handrails on steps leading from the front porch of the home he rented to plaintiff was a jury issue.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Luanne Johnston sued her landlord, Michael Ross, for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell down a set of steps at the house she rented as her residence.1 Johnston appeals from the trial court’s order granting Ross summary judgment. For reasons that follow, we reverse. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, construed favorably to the nonmovant, demonstrates that no genuine issues of material fact remain and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2 So viewed, the record shows that Johnston fell when she lost her footing at the top of five steps leading down from the front porch of the house. Although she cannot identify why she initially lost her footing, Johnston asserts that she fell because the steps lacked handrails that she could have used to steady herself.3 According to Johnston, once she slipped, her “normal instinct was to grab for a handrail, which was not there, so she fell over into the right-hand side of the yard.” She alleges that the absence of handrails created a dangerous condition on the steps.

Johnston’s landlord, Ross, built the house and constructed the steps without handrails. Johnston presented evidence that the lack of handrails was a violation of the applicable building code. The evidence further shows that the absence of handrails was obvious, that Johnston knew the steps had no handrails when she rented the house, and that she did not discuss this condition with Ross before her fall. Johnston had lived in the house for almost three months prior to her fall and had negotiated the steps five or six times without any difficulty. Ordinarily, however, she accessed the house by another set of steps with a handrail that led up to the side door.

Johnston v. Ross

Whether the defendant breached a duty created by the applicable housing code that required handrails on steps leading from the front porch of the home he rented to plaintiff was a jury issue.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report