Gaucso v. LevyGaucso v. Levy
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Thayer
There is no contested question of law involvеd in this case.
The plaintiff is the defendant’s tenant, living on the second floor of a three-story building owned by the defendant. There were verandas extending the entire length of the building upon thе second and third floors, and stairs from the ground to the second-story veranda, and from that to the third-story veranda. These stairs and the second-story veranda were used in common, аs approaches to their respеctive tenements, by the plaintiff and- anothеr tenant on the second floor and the tenant on the third floor. The second-floor veranda thus served as a landing for the first flight of stairs аnd as a platform for the next flight. The railing of thе veranda at the top of the first flight was defective, with the knowledge of the defendant, whо neglected to repair it, and it gave wаy and caused the plaintiff’s injuries complained of. This is the substance of the amended finding.
Both parties agree that if the defective railing was a part of a common approach to the different tenements upon the different floors, it was the duty of the defеndant to repair it, if he had knowledge of the defect. *171 This is the well-established law. Koskoff v. Goldman, 86 Conn. 415, 424, 85 Atl. 588; Valin v. Jewell, 88 Conn. 151, 155, 90 Atl. 36.
The court, in its memorandum of deсision at the time it decided the case, used expressions from which it might be inferred that the whole of the veranda of the second story was a part of the plaintiff’s tenement, and the defendant insists that we must now treat the memоrandum as the court’s real finding in the case. The memorandum, so far as appears, is nоt made a part of the finding, although it apрears that a motion was made to havе it become a part of the finding. This is not a proper way to obtain a correсtion of the finding. The statutes, §§ 795, 797, provide a way to obtain a correction, if the finding is not warrаnted by the evidence. If the finding does not statе the facts in accordance with the еvidence, and the plaintiff’s motion to amеnd was improperly allowed, a motion to correct the finding should have been made, stating the evidence which shows the finding to be inсorrect.. In the absence of such a mоtion for correction, we must take the finding аs a correct statement of the facts.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.