#### Agnes M. Rosseu, Appellee, v. Arthur G. Goodridge, Appellant.

Gen. No. 18,750.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Landlord and tenant, § 230 * —duty of owner of apartment building to Tceep railing of stairway in repair. The owner of an apartment building is bound to keep the railing of a rear stairway in such repair as to permit a person lawfully using the stairway to lean against it for the purpose of protecting him from falling.

2. Landlord and tenant, § 259 * —when question of contributory negligence is for jury. Whether a tenant in an apartment building is guilty of contributory negligence in leaning against the railing of a rear stairway to the building is a question for the jury.

3. Landlord and tenant, § 260 * —when instruction not misleading as assuming facts. In an action by a tenant against the owner *165of an apartment building for personal injuries caused by a defective railing to a rear stairway, an instruction not directing a verdict given for plaintiff held not misleading under the facts shown by the evidence, though it assumed, as a fact, that the owner retained control of the stairway.

*164Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 5, 1914.

Rehearing denied February 16, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Agnes Rosseu against Arthur G. Good-ridge to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff by falling from a stairway in the rear of an apartment building owned by the defendant and occupied in part by plaintiff under a lease from the defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for seven hundred and fifty dollars, defendant appeals.

Benson Landon, for appellant.

Lawrence A. Cohen, for appellee.

*

bee Illinois Motes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.

*1654. Appeal and error, § 1595 * —rule as to sufficiency of declaration after verdict. After verdict, the rule is that if a declaration contains terms sufficiently general to include by fair and reasonable intendment, any matter necessary to be proved and without proof of which the jury could not have given the verdict, the want of an express averment of such matter is cured by verdict.

5. Appeal and error, § 1611 * —when declaration sufficient after verdict. Id an actioD by a tenant íd aD apartment building for iDjuries resultiDg from a defective railing to a rear stairway, the dedaratioD held sufficient after verdict thoagh it did Dot specifically allege that the defendaDt retaiaed coDtrol of the stairway, nor so allege that the plaintiff exercised due care at the time of the injury, or that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, the declaration alleging that the stairway was used by all the tenants of the building and containing other averments from which it could be reasonably inferred that plaintiff exercised due care at the time of the injury and that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.