Dora L. Levine v. Dr. Harold H. Katz and Shannon & Luchs Company
407 F.2d 303
D.C. Cir.
1968
Check Treatment

*1 decline to ven- powers we project as its a ambitious so ture present- be, as at least elimination would

ly advised. overdraft, court the trial As to the guarantee that, since the

ruled made, signed the overdraft before honoring ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍the the Bank in action of con- itself

request for that sum was guarantee for

sideration judgment of entered Hence it amount.

liability оf the overdraft for the amount liability amount for the

but found no original find no error loan. judgment. $6,293.72 from the Bank collected assigned it se- receivable

accounts curity. first credited ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍trial court payment against made

that collection overdraft, later but by the Bank on the against and credited it

reconsidered agree its dis- original loan. We

position the item.

Affirmed. C., Levin, Washington,

Joseph D. appellant. Washington, Doherty, D. H.

Cornelius C., appellees. Judge, Before Chief Pretty- Bazelon, Judge, Senior Circuit Burger, man, Judge. Circuit LEVINE, Appellant,

Dora L. Judge: PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit & Dr. Harold H. KATZ and Shannon damages by civil action for This a Company, Appellees. Luchs negligence. Appellant-plain- reason of No. 21145. mat, slipрed tiff small a strawlike United States Court of lying undercoating on a without adhesive District Columbia Circuit. entering polished floor, highly while Argued Dec. lobby multi-family apartment house. leasing, the landlord had ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍reserved May 14, Decided parts, control the halls designed the common tenants. use and сonvenience of all of the her on visit Plaintiff and husband were grandchildren (granddaughter to their husband), in Saturday customary house. This awas family and followed occurrence afternoon telephone some conversation between completed Before ladiеs. evidence, the trial directed ver- *2 ground upon diet defendants the that ants and reserves under his control halls, was mere stairways licensеe and conse- parts or other of the quently duty the landlord under no property by for use in common safety. to exercise tenants, reasonable care for ordinary the he must use diligence We think the court erred in that deter- and to maintain the retained mination, accordingly parts and vacate the we reasonably in safe condition. judgment [Citing and remand. duty The from cases.] stems responsibility engenderеd the in the long It has been settled in well by having landlord his an extended jurisdiction that, landlord this where invitation, express implied, to or use separаte portions property leases of to portions property the of the retained different under his tenants and reserves by him. Such an invita- [Citations.] stairs, halls, own control the or other tion extended to a the tenant includes parts property in common for use guests, fаmily, of members his his his by tenants, duty to he has a all those and invitees others on the land premises legal right on the ordinary to of use right of the tenant. [Citаtions.]” diligence care and to maintain Maryland the court unani reasonably parts the retained in a safe mously rule, saying, iterated thе “There condition.1 The house in the Maryland is no in doubt land [the case at bar was in sub across the line reserving lord parts of the control over Maryland, urban the in and property] must then exercise jurisdiction the same been has diligence care and to the re maintain the The in District.2 Court portions reasonably tained in a condition.” Maryland safe in in a unanimous 4 opinion by Judge Hammond, written carefully stated the mattеr with succinct In the case before the us trial explanation and extended citations.3 He cited, quoted, expressly and relied part: in said upon the case of Levine v. separate Miller.5

“Where a landlord leases The record there disclosed that portions property the landlord empty of a to different ten- maintained an and Hanlon, App.D.C. 14, 1. Wardman could made the condition safe.” (Emphasis Pessagno supplied.) 280 F. Harper Co., App.D.C. 141, James, Euclid And see Inv. and Law Dante, (1956): oe § Walker v. 27.17 his, App.D.C. by 58 F.2d 1076 “The owed a landlord to Barclay Corporation, respect Nielsen v. App.D.C. ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍and 103 U.S. their visitors with hallways, approaches to 255 F.2d 545 Ltd., like, House, Lord v. Lencshire the which 106 U.S. in rеtains App.D.C. possession ten- use of his * * * ants, is the full rea- U.S.App.D.C. 31, 33, sonable care to make rea- conditions * * sonably (1963). (Second) Restаtement safe See also (1965): f Torts § o Belzer, Ross v. 199 Md. possessor “A land who leases State, A.2d 799 Seaman v. part thereof retains in his 131 A.2d 871 any part which lessee Gardens, Odell, Elmar Inc. v. appurtenant entitled to use as (1962). A.2d 263 subject part him, leased Landay 220 Md. liability to others law- his lessee and fully upon consent the land Langley Apartments, H., * * * physical the lessee 234 Md. 199 A.2d 620 by dangerous condition harm caused upon '& part retained in of the land by control, lessor the lessor’s if A.2d 418 It oрinion care could the exercise of reasonable to be noted that in this by judge have discovered the condition case was written the same who Cohn, supra wrote in unreasonable risk involved therein note 3. inv landlord’s are the key room, ‍​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍to which locked recrеation my decision our request. But view itees.1 given the tenants depend upon girl, not- adherence to does question a little occаsion On the “invitee-licensee-trespasser use permission to having granted out-moded been open, returned room, Court,3 the door trinity.”2 lеft several *3 5 key, returned and thereafter recognized states,4 England have all in- permission and was room without clssifications the common-law inapposite. jured. that case think progeny are their of subclassiifcations prem- case was on The child of modern discordant with the realities permission. The the time ises at without admiralty living.6 the ambit falls case at bar within replaced trinity Court has repeatedly which have line cases flexible standard based duty of due owes held negligence requiring due care legal to all those on care under con the circumstances7 —a right. cept previously which this court had remanded. Reversed (cid:127) adopted replace conceptual distinc 8 “degrees Here, tions between care.” Judge (concurring BAZELON, Chief authority, in accordance with this modern result): upon com the landlord’s to entrants by mon-use areas reserved developed cases cited The rule expressed explained '“due bеtter in terms of majority often lawfully persons under all the circumstances.” basis that theoretical situation, 24, 150 6. In the both landlord-tenant v. 220 1. See rеcog (1959); the District v. Lencshire Lord A.2d 739 House, contexts, 328, nized, in the com U.S.App.D.C. various 272 Ltd., 106 conception Restatement, mon law’s a landownеr’s (1959); F.2d 557 adjusted of care must often be 332, k comment 2d § present-day urban Apts., needs meet See, g., Langley Inc., e. Parking, life. 118 Daisey v. Colonial H, 402, 777, 199 v. 33, 31, U.S.Apр.D.C. 779 331 Stark, 620, writer). v. A.2d Sezzin 623 (1963) (opinion of this 241, 742, 49 A.2d 746 187 360, U.S.App.D.C. DeBeve, v. Gould 117 Compagnie Trans- Generale v. Kermarec Cain, Kay v. 81 630-631, F.2d 826 625, 330 U.S.App.D.C. 79 atlantique, 358 U.S. 24, 25, 305, 154 F.2d Jones L.Ed.2d S.Ct. U.S.Apр. Fletcher, Hanna v. States, 265- U.S. v. United (1956) D.C. 4 L.Ed.2d 80 S.Ct. opinion). (concurring Highway Jersey Taylor New 4. See Compagnie Trans- Generale 7. Kermarec v. Auth., 22 N.J. atlantique, supra, Whan, U.S. at note Good A.L.R.2d 631-632, 79 S.Ct. (Okl.1959); Fernandez P.2d 911 Cal.App.2d Fisheries, 98 Consolidated U.S.App.D.C. Jacobsen, 8. Hecht Co. Alexander 73, 76-77 P.2d (1950), also F.2d 13 See Assur. Life& Fire Accident v. General supra, note (La.App.1957); Corp., So.2d 730 33-34, U.S.App.D.C. Lipton, St. 156 Ohio Scheibel at 779-780. N.E.2d Act, Liability 5 & Occupiers’ 2, c. 31. Eliz.