Is a lessor obligated to keep access to a common staircase safe?

I accept the statement of Lush J. in Dunster v. Hollis, supra, at p. 802 as applicable to the facts of the instant case: A lessor who lets rooms to a tenant and provides a common staircase which the tenant must use must come under an implied contractual obligation to keep the access in a reasonably safe condition, otherwise the tenant cannot enjoy the use of the rooms which he has contracted to take.

While the facts of the instant case may not fall within the category of cases where a landlord has been negligent in allowing the stairway to become out of repair, it seems reasonably clear to me to be a case where the landlord has failed to keep the access to the plaintiff’s apartment in a reasonably safe condition. He permitted the continuance of a situation involving danger where there was no handrail on the stairway when there should have been two, and by permitting the continued use of hard-rubber ribbed matting on the steps which, while reasonably safe when dry, became dangerous when wet. It should have been obvious and foreseeable to any careful and prudent landlord that the water was likely to be tracked onto the matting of the steps from outdoors during certain weather conditions which would render the steps slippery thereby making the stairway unsafe. In my view of the facts the landlord's failure to foresee that the stairway would become unsafe and to remedy the situation was no less negligent than would have been his failure to allow the steps to become "out of repair". In Dunster v. Hollis, at p. 803, Lush J. said: The second question, therefore, is whether the tenant has a right to sue the lessor for damages if he proves that the lessor was negligent in allowing the steps to be out of repair, even though the defect was visible and obvious. In other words, is the lessor merely under an obligation to avoid exposing the tenant to a trap or is he liable if through want of care he allows the premises to be in an unsafe condition? In my opinion the latter is the correct view. I do not see how a lessor who has impliedly undertaken to keep the access reasonably safe can avoid liability by proving that the tenant knew that the steps were old, worn, and defective. That fact may be a good ground for the conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, but I must hold that that in itself affords no answer to the action.