{ "id": 5473557, "name": "RANDELL LASTER, a Minor, by Ora Warnsby, his Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Laster v. Chicago Housing Authority", "decision_date": "1982-02-22", "docket_number": "No. 80-2858", "first_page": "540", "last_page": "544", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "104 Ill. App. 3d 540" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "414 N.E.2d 1161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ill. App. 3d 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3148298 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/91/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 Ill. App. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2620869 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/141/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 Ill. App. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3059227 ], "year": 1908, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/226/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N.E.2d 231", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "411 Ill. 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5312919 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/411/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 N.E.2d 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 Ill. App. 3d 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3410049 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/55/0744-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 N.E.2d 802", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2910922 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/4/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 S.E.2d 673", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 Va. 713", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 1973138 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/182/0713-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 F.2d 825", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 968690 ], "year": 1944, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/73/0825-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 Mo. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8736771 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1934, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/327/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 N.E.2d 26", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3359675 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/59/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. 2d 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.E.2d 794", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 Ill. App. 2d 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2654311 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/128/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 N.E.2d 88", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 2d 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2601547 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/59/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 N.E.2d 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. App. 2d 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5289617, 5289351 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/67/0222-01", "/ill-app-2d/67/0222-02" ] }, { "cite": "9 Ill. 2d 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.E.2d 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill. App. 2d 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5156957 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424-25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/10/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 N.E.2d 643", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 Ill. App. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5101600 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/349/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N.E.2d 615", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 Ill. App. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5055066 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/331/0568-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 539, "char_count": 8462, "ocr_confidence": 0.905, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.947662000935496e-08, "percentile": 0.5367828394628412 }, "sha256": "3a79d01601f49a60dbe5c7e1191e7bec846e6966e1b5faf4c748964e1dd0d83c", "simhash": "1:60157547a738ddc6", "word_count": 1388 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:33.067215+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "RANDELL LASTER, a Minor, by Ora Warnsby, his Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Randell Laster, a seven-year-old minor, lived with his family in an apartment leased from defendant, Chicago Housing Authority. He was injured on June 26,1969, when he fell from a window when a window screen gave way. His suit against defendant for damages was dismissed and judgment entered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.\nHis amended complaint alleged: the lease was renewed each year prior to June 26,1969; on many occasions prior to the renewal in March of 1969, plaintiff\u2019s mother, Ora Warnsby, had complained of the dangerous condition of the screens in the apartment, particularly to the danger to her children. Specifically, she was promised by representatives of defendant that the screens would be repaired or otherwise made safe against the possibility of her children falling out of the windows. This promise was made in consideration of the renewal of said dwelling lease. On and prior to June 26,1969, defendant was guilty of negligence in one or more of the following respects: (a) in failing to repair or otherwise correct the danger from the defective screen in the window through which plaintiff fell; (b) in permitting the screen to remain loose, insecure and defective, so that the screen was likely to fall out when slight pressure was exerted upon it; and (c) in furnishing and maintaining the said screen with flanges, grooves and hinges which were inadequate, insecure and defective, so that the screen was likely to fall out when slight pressure was exerted upon it. As a proximate result of one or more of these negligent acts or omissions, plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries. It further alleged that at the time of the occurrence defendant was insured.\nDefendant\u2019s motion to dismiss alleged, among other matters, that in paragraph 6 of the written lease the tenants covenanted to keep their apartment in a good state of repair and the landlord did not covenant in the lease to repair the screens or otherwise keep the apartment in a good state of repair; therefore, defendant had no duty to repair said window screens or otherwise make them \u201csafe against the possibility of children falling out of the windows\u201d and cited in support Crawford v. Orner & Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill. App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615; Rogers v. Sins (1953), 349 Ill. App. 353, 110 N.E.2d 643; Gasquoine v. Bornstein (1956), 10 Ill. App. 2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121, appeal denied (1956), 9 Ill. 2d 627, and Scheffler v. Ringhofer (1966), 67 Ill. App. 2d 222, 214 N.E.2d 575.\nThe trial court dismissed on the ground that plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint failed to allege any common law duty owed by defendant to plaintiff.\nWe agree with the trial court. The law is well settled. In addition to the above-cited cases, see also McNairy v. Kup Realty Co. (1965), 59 Ill. App. 2d 463, 208 N.E.2d 88; Madison v. Reuben (1970), 128 Ill. App. 2d 11, 262 N.E.2d 794, appeal denied (1970), 44 Ill. 2d 587; and Jones v. Chicago Housing Authority (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 138, 376 N.E.2d 26.\nIn opposition, plaintiff cites cases from other jurisdictions: Shaw v. Butterworth (1931), 327 Mo. 622, 38 S. W.2d 57; Baker v. Dallas Hotel Co. (5th Cir. 1934), 73 F.2d 825; Crosswhite v. Shelby Operating Corp. (1944), 182 Va. 713, 30 S.E.2d 673. These cases predate Crawford, Rogers and Gasquoine. In fact, Gasquoine rejected their reasoning, distinguished their holdings and cited cases from New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, California and Nebraska holding as does Illinois. (10 Ill. App. 2d 423, 424-25.) We see no reason to depart from the settled Illinois law.\nPlaintiff further argues that despite the settled law his complaint should not have been dismissed for the further reason that it alleged facts sufficient to establish a binding covenant on defendant\u2019s part to repair the screens in the apartment. We disagree.\nAs plaintiff concedes, a landlord generally has no liability regarding the leased portion of the premises except where a covenant to repair exists. Lulay v. South Side Trust & Savings Bank (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 483, 280 N.E.2d 802.\nAs stated above, the amended complaint alleged that the lease was renewed each year and that prior to the renewal in March 1969 plaintiff\u2019s mother had on many occasions complained of the dangerous condition of the screens, particularly to the danger to her children, and that she was promised by representatives of defendant that the screens would be repaired or otherwise made safe against the possibility of her children falling out of the window, and that this promise was made in consideration of the renewal of the lease.\nThe lease was attached to the amended complaint. Its provisions, where they conflict with the allegations, negate such allegations. Ford v. University of Illinois Board of Trustees (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 744, 371 N.E.2d 173.\nThe lease provides for an initial term to the end of the month during which the lease began (March 1966) and thereafter for a continuous automatically renewing term measured by successive calendar months. The tenancy continues unless and until either party gives the other proper written notice of termination. This is clearly inconsistent with the allegations of the complaint that the \u201clease was renewed each year prior to June 26,1969\u201d and that there had been a \u201crenewal in March of 1969.\u201d Because there was no annual renewal, the lease continued in effect unless and until terminated. Obviously there could not have been any \u201cconsideration\u201d for the renewal of the lease. Wagner v. Kepler (1951), 411 Ill. 368, 104 N.E.2d 231.\nA promise on the part of the landlord with respect to the premises which is made once the tenancy begins is a nudum pactum and is unenforceable unless there is a separate consideration therefor. (Margolen v. deHaan (1922), 226 Ill. App. 110; Strong v. Soodvoisky (1908), 141 Ill. App. 183; Crawford v. Orner & Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill. App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615.) In those cases, the promise was merely a promise to repair. The present case is an a fortiori situation where plaintiff seeks to impose an undertaking more onerous than that imposed by the common law, i.e., making the screens safe against the possibility of children falling out of the window.\nThere is no separate consideration alleged other than the pleader\u2019s conclusion \u2014 inconsistent with the lease agreement and therefore not to be accorded any value (Ford) \u2014 that the \u201cpromise was made in consideration of the renewal of said dwelling lease.\u201d Because such is clearly not consideration, the complaint fails to set forth any enforceable duty on the part of the landlord other than the duties imposed by common law, which do not encompass providing (or maintaining or repairing) window screens which save children from falling through open window spaces.\nBecause of the conclusion we have reached, we find it unnecessary to consider defendant\u2019s argument in support of the trial court\u2019s dismissal that it is protected under section 2 \u2014 106 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 85, par. 2 \u2014 106), from liability based on the claimed promise by its representative to repair or otherwise make the screens safe.\nPlaintiff\u2019s contention that the fact that defendant had insurance constitutes a waiver of immunity is without merit. First, under the provisions of the lease plaintiff\u2019s parents undertook the obligation of keeping the premises \u201cin good state of repair and maintenance.\u201d Second, although the lease reserves to defendant (as landlord) the right to enter the apartment and to make such repairs as it may deem necessary, that, without more, does not impose on the landlord a duty to repair. (Bielarczyk v. Happy Press Lounge, Inc. (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 577, 414 N.E.2d 1161.) This is not a case where a landlord undertook to make repairs but did it negligently.\nThe trial court correctly dismissed the amended complaint.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nCAMPBELL, P. J., and McGLOON, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR" } ], "attorneys": [ "William J. Harte, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.", "Jacobs, Williams and Montgomery, Ltd., of Chicago (Barry L. Kroll and Thomas H. Neuckranz, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "RANDELL LASTER, a Minor, by Ora Warnsby, his Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 80-2858\nOpinion filed February 22, 1982.\nWilliam J. Harte, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.\nJacobs, Williams and Montgomery, Ltd., of Chicago (Barry L. Kroll and Thomas H. Neuckranz, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0540-01", "first_page_order": 562, "last_page_order": 566 }