Photographs showing a staircase before and after repairs should not have been allowed as evidence in a negligence claim against a landlord, the Connecticut Appellate Court has ruled.
In a unanimous opinion, the appeals court ordered a new trial in a case won by a postal employee who was injured while delivering mail when she fell on the stairs because of what she said was a faulty railing. She claimed that her injuries were caused by the owner’s negligence in failing to properly secure and fasten the right-hand railing of the exterior staircase.
The appeals court found that the trial court in New Haven abused its discretion in admitting and relying upon the photographs depicting the condition of the staircase after repairs had been made in order to show the landlord’s negligence. The appeals court found that allowing the evidence violated the Connecticut Code of Evidence, and that the improper evidence likely affected the outcome of the prior trial.
The building is one with a commercial business on the first floor and tenants on the second and third floor. The mail carrier went up the stairs, delivered the mail, and on her way down she held onto the railing. The railing was loose and rusted out at the bottom and it pushed out. She stumbled, her left ankle rolled out and both her left and right knees buckled going down.
During the trial, the mail carrier submitted two sets of photographs into evidence. One set showed photographs from Google Earth that she said accurately depicted the condition of the exterior staircase at the time she fell. The second showed the condition of the staircase “after her injury and after the railings got redone.”
The mail carrier argued that “it is obvious there is a strong contrast between the conditions of the railings and stairs” before the accident and after the injuries. She further stated that the photos showed the concrete was deteriorating at the bottom near the sidewalk and in the middle of the stairs leading up to the landing. “Proper inspection and a little maintenance would have prevented the plaintiff from falling,” her lawyer contended.
The landlord’s counsel objected to the admission of all of the photographs as not relevant. He noted that the mail carrier’s complaint did not allege that the defect in question was the condition of the stairs and that she failed to prove that the railings were defective.