Fulmele v. Forrest

Citations

• 27 Del. 155
• 4 Boyce 155
• 86 A. 733
• 1913 Del. LEXIS 31

Syllabus

<p>1. Landlord and Tenant—Defective Premises—Presumption of • Negligence.</p> <p>Where plaintiff’s husband as the result of a fall on the steps of a tenement in which they resided, because of alleged negligence of the landlord in making repairs, there was no presumption of negligence, either on the part of the landlord or of plaintiff’s husband, from the mere fact that injury resulted to him, causing his death.</p> <p>2. Landlord and Tenant—Repairs—Negligence.</p> <p>Where a landlord, though not bound to make repairs, undertakes to do so, he is liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of himself or his servants in making them.</p> <p>3. Landlord and Tenant—Defective Premises—Repairs—Negligence —Injuries to Tenant.</p> <p>Where a tenant died as the alleged result of injuries sustained by falling on the steps of his tenement, due to the landlord's alleged negligence in making repairs, the landlord would not be liable if deceased could have avoided his injuries by the exercise of ordinary care, or if they resulted because of intoxication and not from the condition of the steps.</p> <p>4. Death—Measure of Damages.</p> <p>The damages a widow is entitled to recover for the death of her husband are such as will reasonably compensate her for any and all pecuniary damage she sustained, or might sustain in the future, by reason of the loss of her husband, governed by the portion of his gross income that she probably would have received, had he lived.</p> <p>5. New Trial—Inadequate Damages.</p> <p>Whether a new trial should be granted because oí inadequate damages rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. In general, the courts will not disturb verdicts merely for inadequacy, unless the verdict clearly indicates passion, partiality, prejudice, mistake, or misapprehension.</p> <p>6. New Trial—Inadequate Damages—Nominal Damages—Construction.</p> <p>Where, in an action for death, it did not necessarily appear that plaintiff was entitled to recover substantial dam