Even as to passengers and neighbors, the Messrs. Frank E. Rainold and A. G. owner of a building is answerable for the dam- Brice for appellee. ages occasioned by its ruin only where it is caused by bis neglect to repair it, or when it is Watkins, J., delivered the opinion of the the result of a vice in its original construction. court:

Burton v. Davis, 15 La. Ann. 448; Civ. Plaintiff seeks to recover $10,000 damages Code, art. 2322.

of the defendant, as owner of the house at the Even a subtenant cannot acquire greater corner of Julia and St. Charles streets, in the rights than the tenant.

city of New Orleans, it being at the time ocTalley v. Alexander, 10 La. Ann. 627; Nor- cupied as a residence by one W. H. Burgess ton v. Ormsby, 1 Mart. N. S. 375.

as his tenant, under the following circumAny person entering upon the premises en stances, as related in bis petition, viz.: “On ters either under the contract of lease, or as a the 16th November, 1894, Burgess entertained trespasser.

& party of friends at his home. They had Upon the first bypothesis, the rights of such come as a 'surprise party,' and were welcomed person cannot be greater than those of the by Burgess as guests. Among them was the tenant. Upon the second, there is no privity daughter of plaintiff, and she was made welof contract between the person entering and come by the host and bis wife. A little after the owner of the property, and if the person 1 o'clock, Miss Virgie McConnell was standing entering be injured, he, or she, must look to on the veranda or gallery that surrounded the the person with whom he or she had an implied dwelling, and on wbich a number of doors contract as to his or her safety as a guest. opened. She had stepped upon the gallery for

O'Connor v. Illinois C. R. Co. 44 La. Ann. the purpose of enjoying the fresh air, as the 339.

evening was a warm one, while the other The tenant cannot recover damages by rea young ladies were putting on their bats, preson of the failure of the landlord to make reparatory to leaving While she was standing pairs, when the rent is sufficient to enable the on this gallery, which was a structure extendlessee to make them, because in such a case the ing along both the Julia and St. Charles street lessee is authorized to make them himself and sides of the house, being about 12 feet wide, to deduct the cost from the rent.

with a railing encircling it, the fire bells rang. Lewis v. Pepin, 33 La. Ann. 1417; Caldwell and about a dozen of the guests came out to v. Snou, 8 La. Ann. 392; Pesant v. Heartt, watch the fire engine pass. The engine house 22 La. App. 292; Diggs v. Maury, 23 La. Ann. was nearly opposite, and they viewed the pre59; Larguier v. White, 29 La. Ann. 156; parations of the firemen, and departure of the Laurence v. Le licore, Manning's Unreported engine out Julia street, towards the woods. Cases, p. 11.

: . The engine had scarcely crossed St.

than the lessee himself and the members of his is not liable to his tenant's customers or guests for family have. McKenzie v. Cheetbam, 83 Me. 543. accidents happening in consequence during tbe

In Jaffe v. Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398, 15 Am. Rep. 438, term. Robbins v. Jones, 15 C. B. N. S. 221, 33 L. J. where tbe plaintiff, wife of a sublessee of the prop-C. P. N. S. 1, 10 Jur. N. S. 239, 9 L. T. N. S. 523. 12 erty, was injured by an explosion of a water boiler Week. Rep. 248. on the property, the court held the landlord not In Burchell v. Hickisson, 50 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 101. liable, the evidence showing that there was no rea- plaintiff, a child four years old, went with his sisson to believe that the owner knew of the unsafe ter to a bouse wbich bad been let without any condition of the boiler. The court says the owner agreement as to repair, and fell through a broken of a building is not, in the absence of fraud or any rail at the top of a flight of steps and was injured. agreement to that effect, liable to the tenant or The court does not discuss the question of liability others lawfully on the premises by his authority as between defendant and the tenant, but places for their condition, or bound to see that they may its ruling for defendant upon the ground that debe safely and conveniently used for the purposes fendant never invited such a person as plaintiff to for which they are apparently intended.

come to the premises without an attendant, and if Althougb the landlord puts fixtures in a store in he had an attendant there was no concealed danan unsafe manner, and neglects to remedy the de- ger, which alone would render defendant liafect when notified of it by the tenant, he will not ble. be liable for injuries to the tenant's customer In Ten Broeck v. Wells, F. & Co. 47 Fed. Rep. 690. caused by the defect, since the remedy of the cus- where the plaintiff, a guest at a hotel, received an tomer is solely against the one who invited him injury by falling from the front steps because of into the dangerous place. Burdick v. Cheadle, 20 the absence of a railing, and sued the owner of the Obio St. 393, 20 Am. Rep. 767.

hotel, who had leased it to a third person, the court The owner of property leased for business pur- beld that the defect being patent the risk was asposes is not, in the abeence of covenant in the sumed by the guest, and she could not recover for lease, bound to repair the premises, and therefore injuries caused by it. is not liable to the employee of the tenant for in- The owner of a building leased to a tenant wbo juries caused by defects in a stairway used in con- occupies it is not liable for injuries to a person who nection with the premises. Willson v. Treadwell, is injured by falling down an embankment while 81 Cal. 58.

walking from the street to the house for the purWhere the daughter of a lessee who had cov- pose of transacting business with the tenant, alenanted to keep the premises in repair was injured though the premises were in that condition when by the falling of a veranda, the court held that she they were leased. Mellen v. Morrill, 126 Mass. 545, could not be considered a stranger, and had no 30 Am. Rep. 695. right of action against the lessor for the injury so The landlord is not liable to any person entering received. Mehr v. McNab, 24 Ont. Rep. 653. under the title of the tenant or upon the premises

by his invitation, where there is no agreement to Defect in premises when let.

repair and he has not been guilty of any fraud or A landlord who lets a house in a dangerous state concealment as to the safe condition of the premCharles street before the section of the gallery | poses; that there was no defect in said gallery upon which Miss McConnell, with about seven which was apparent to an observer, and that or eight other guests, was standing, suddenly he had effected all the repairs which were gave way and fell, and precipitated her and necessary a short time before the accident, and, others to the bard flag pavement of the side- if any further repairs were desired, it was the walk, a distance of about 13 feet. Two others duty of the tenant to have notified bim to fell on top of her. Her right leg was broken make same, and, in default of his so doing, to above the knee, and she was bruised all over have made same, and deducted the cost from the body. She remained six weeks in bed in the amount of rent due or to become due. He the Charity Hospital, suffering excruciating denies that plaintiff's daughter went on the pains and agony; and she could not walk with premises with the knowledge or consent of out a crutch for montbs after the accident. I himself, or even with the request or at invitaAfter bealing, her injured leg was found to be tion of his tenant. He avers that his tenant shorter than the uninjured one. Dr. Schmit- possessed and used the gallery daily, and, had tle, who had not measured the extent of the same been in the dangerous condition it is repshortening, thought it was between / to tincb. resented to have been, it would have been the Dr. E. J. Graner, wbo made a critical exam-duty of the tenant to have warned the young ination, testified that it was about 1 inch. people composing the surprise party of the Both physicians concur in pronouncing the in- danger there was of crowding thereon, as they jury permanent, and that Miss McConnell will are admitted to have done; that the proximate be a cripple for life. She will always limp. cause of the accident and of the injury which The cause of the falling of the gallery was was inflicted upon plaintiff's daughter was the fully proved. It was rotten to such an extent sudden rushing of the dozen of young ladies that no repairs could have rendered it safe. out upon the gallery simultaneously, same not The inspector of public buildings of the city having underneath any proper and suitable off New Orleans, Mr. Peeler, made an exam- support, as is usual when it is expected to be ination of that portion of the structure that resorted to by an unusual assembly of persons did not give away, and ordered it torn down, As matter of law it was contended by the de as dangerous to human life.”

fendant's counsel : That the precept of our Admitting his ownership of the premises in Code which provides that the owner of a buildquestion and the lease of Burgess, the defending is answerable for the damage occasioned ant, for answer, avers that it was rented for by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to the uses and purposes of a residence, and was repair it (Rev. Civil Code, $ 2322), applies only in thoroughly good condition at the time the to passers-by upon the public highway and to accident happened, and that it was amply safe neighbors, and not to persons voluntarily enfor its usual, ordinary, and contemplated pur-| tering upon private premises, and there suffer

ises, and the defects in the premises are obvious. The owner of an hotel is not liable to a guest for Harpel v. Fall (Minn.) 65 N. W. 913.

the fall of an awning known to be unsafe, unless A landlord is not liable for injuries caused by a he is bound by the lease to keep the awning in refall of a child of a subtenant by reason of the ab- pair. Fellows v. Gilbuber, 82 Wis. 639, 17 L. R. A. sence of a fence between the property and the street 577. when the fence was removed before the beginning A landlord is not liable to a servant of his tenant of the term duriog which the injury occurred. Pe- for injuries occasioned by a dangerous condition of terson v. Smart, 70 Mo. 34.

the premises existing at the time of the lease, alJp Moynihan v. Allyn, 162 Mass. 270, which was a though he subsequently promises without a new case of an injury on a platform used in common by consideration to repair the premises, if there is no all the occupants of a tenement building, the court covenant to repair in the lease. Perez v. Rabaud, refused to permit recovery on the ground that 76 Tex, 191, 7 L. R. A. 620. the defect was patent and in the same condition In Lower Canada the landlord is bound todeliver when the lease was made, and that it was the duty his premises to the tenant in good repair, and the of the tenant to provide against injuries upon it. owner of property is liable for injuries caused by

The owner of a building is not liable for injuries its ruin through want of repair, and the wife of a to a child of his tenant which were caused by its at-tenant may recover for injuries caused to her soon tempted use of a fire escape as a balcony. McAl. after taking possession by the giving way of a por. pin v. Powell, 70 N. Y. 126, 28 Am. Rep. 555.

tion of the building through want of repair. SimBut in the trial court there had been a recovery mons v. Elliott, Mont. L. R.5 8. C. 182. by plaintifr upon the ground that the fire escape There is a case in one of the lower courts of New was required by statute, and therefore the landlord York which seems to be out of harmony with the was liable for not providing a safe one. McAlpin line of authorities upon this question. v. Powell, 1 Abb. N. C. 427.

The child of a tenant may recover for injuries A child injured by falling from a window upon a received by the falling upon it, in the yard, of a roof and through an unprotected skylight therein large stone wbicb bad been left standing perpencannot recover therefor against the landlord, al- dicularly against the fence in such a way as to be though the landlord owed the duty of maintaining a trap for children, if it was there when the premthe roof in a safe condition for the tenant to hang ises were leased. Schmidt v. Cook, 12 Misc. 449. clothes over. Miller v. Woodhead, 104 N. Y. 471. If the stone was in the condition described, the

A landlord is not liable for the death of a child of defect would certainly be patent, and the tenant a visitor of his tenant who is drowned in an open and consequently his child would assume the risk. hole 58 feet from the rear of the dwelling house, which was dug at tenant's request. Moore v. Lo

· Effect of concealment by landlord. gan Iron & S. Co. (Pa.) 4 Cent. Rep. 505.

If the landlord is guilty of anything like bad The owner of an hotel is not liable for injuries to faith, so that he leases the premises with a cona guest by reason of defects in the walk or plat- cealed defect upon them, he will be liable for the form forming the approach to the building. Texas injuries caused by such defect. What will render & P. R. Co. v. Mangum, 68 Tex. 342.

him guilty of bad faith has not been fully detering an injury. That a person who thus enters that at the time of the accident the tenant was the premises of another by the permission of in default in making payment of his rent, and the tenant is, with respect to the owner, a mere was subsequently notified to vacate the leased licensee, and sustains a relation to bim some premises on account of bis nonpayment of rent. what like that of a subtenant, and can acquire That the gallery was not in a condition to no greater rights than the principal lessee; and stand this unusual strain is not depied, but, on if he enters without permission of the lessee, the contrary, was generally known among the he is a trespasser, without any privity of con- guests; and that during the course of the eventract with respect to the owner, through the ing that the accident happened the visitors medium of the lease. That a tenant cannot were warned and admonished to desist from recover damages of the landlord by reason of dancing, as the gallery would not stand the his failure to make repairs, when the arrear strain it would produce. That, notwithstandages of rent are sufficient to enable the lessee ing that warning, the guests rushed out on the to make them in case of the lessor's failure to gallery when the fire bell rang, causing it to make same after he has received due notifica- give way and fall beneath their accumulated tion of the necessity of same being made. And weight, causing the injury complained of to he avers that at the time of the happening of the plaintiff's daughter. Plaintiff's counsel the accident the tenant was in arrears a suffi- puts his client's right of recovery upon the folcient amount to have defrayed the cost of the lowing provision of our Code, viz.: "The owner necessary repairs.

of a building is answerable for the damage ocOn the trial there was judgment for $2,500 casioned by its ruin, when this is caused by against the defendant, predicated upon the ver. neglect to repair it, or when it is the result of dict of a jury, from which he has appealed; a vice in its original construction.” Rev. Civil and in this court plaintiff has demanded that Code, S 2322. And the further provision, viz.: this allowance be increased to $5,000.

"Every person is responsible for the damage The proof at the trial substantially conforms he occasions, not merely by his act, but by bis to the foregoing statements pro et con. It negligence, his imprudence, or his want of shows: That shortly after be rented the prem- skill.” Id. $ 2316. These provisions of the ises to Burgess the defendant sent carpenters Code treat of offenses and quasi offenses toto the leased premises, with instructions to wards the general public, and they impose upon place it in good order, and that materials were the owner of a building the general duty of ordered and delivered for that purpose, and keeping it in such a state of repair and preserused by the carpenters. That all the repairs vation that it will not occasion damage to any. necessary were voluntarily made by the de- one; and, in case of his failure so to do, they fendant, and that no demand was subsequently declare that he is answerable in damages to one made by the tenant for additional repairs. I who shall suffer injury in consequence of his mined. Of course if he knows of the concealed de- of falling, but which defect is not patent, he will fect,and fails to make it known to the tenant, he will be liable for injuries to a servant of the lessee who be guilty of bad faith. The point which is not set- is injured by the fall. Reichenbacher v. Pahmeyer, tled is whether or not the landlord owes anyłactive 8 Ill. App. 217. duty to search for concealed defects. The idea A railroad company over whose tracks another that he owes such duty seems to bave arisen very company by virtue of a contract runs its trains, is recently, and very little discussion of the matter liable in tort to the latter's brakeman, who, while is found in the reports. If such duty is found to in the due performance of his duty on the employexist, then it logically follows that if he fails to give er's train, receives a personal injury solely by reathe property such examination as a landlord should son of the negligent construction of the owner's give his property before renting it for the use to station house. The court says it is settled law that which he knows the tenant will apply it, and such when the owner lets premises which are in a condiexamination would have disclosed the defect, be tion which is unsafe for the avowed purpose for will be guilty of actionable negligence. This is the which they are let, or with a nuisance upon them rule of reasonable care and diligence which is ap- when let, and receives rent therefor, he is liable, plied in STENBERG V. WILLCOX. But the adoption whether in or out of possession, for the inof that rule immediately raises the further ques-juries which result from their insecurity to persons tion whether the care required of the landlord for lawfully upon them. Nugent v. Boston, C. & M. R. the discovery of defects is greater than that re- Co. 80 Me. 63. quired of the tenant. STENBERG v. WILLCOX im- That statement of settled law is true oply when plies that it is, and is apparently supported by applied to one of the exceptions to the rule, and statements in some of the cases. But the old cases cannot be accepted as an accurate statement of tbe applied the rule of caveat emptor to the tenant, and general liability of the landlord to the tenants, the most that can be said is that the doctrine that guests, or servants. the landlord has the duty to search for concealed A landlord is not liable for injuries to a visitor of defects is a new one, recently broached, and has his tenant which are caused by a defect in the not yet received consideration enough by the premises at the time they were leased, unless he courts, at least in cases involving liability to ten- knew, or by reasonable diligence might have ant's guests or servants to indicate whatrule will be known, of their dangerous condition. Borman v. adopted. See note to Hines v. Willcox, post,

Sandgren, 37 III. App. 160. If the premises contain a hidden defect which by A landlord is not liable to an employee of his reason of its location is likely to cause injury, and lessee for illness caused by defective plumbing the landlord knows of the defect but fails to notify where he is not charged with fraud or deceit, or the tenant of it, the landlord will be liable for in- with any more knowledge of the defects that the juries to the tenant's child which are caused by rea- lessee had. Angevine v. Knox-Goodrich (Cal.) 18 son of its presence. Coke v. Gutkese, 80 Ky. 598, 44 L. R. A. 284. Am. Rep. 499.

A landlord is not liable to the employee of a tepIf the owner of an hotel places therein a chande- ant for injuries caused by an explosion of gas in lier which is hung so insecurely as to be in danger | adjoining property owned by him by reason of de

neglect, imprudence, or want of skill. But served that the articles cited do not rest upon counsel for the defendant contend that the contractual relations at all, but the liability of article first cited must be construed in connec- the owner arises ex delicto alone. He is held tion with the provisions of article 670, which liable because he is deemed guilty of a fault in are as follows, viz., "Everyone is bound to not keeping his building in such a safe condikeep his buildings in repair, so that neither tion as it will not do any member of the their fall, nor that of any part of the materials public an injury. It is the thing which offends, composing them, may injure the neighbors or and the owner suffers the consequences of the passengers, under the penalty of all losses and offense. The imposition of the penalty results damages, which may result from the neglect from the idea that the faulty or defective of the owner in that respect.' (Our italics.) building is an invasion of the security that These articles have been frequently construed municipal government guarantees to the citizen by this court, but in no case of which or wayfarer in the public thoroughfare of the we are aware have they been applied to a city. This reason and spirit of this rule does case circumstanced as this case is. They not seem to apply to the person who seeks have been construed as applying to per- admission to the premises, or who goes there sons injured wbile walking along the street. upon the invitation of the owner or tenant, Horse v. New Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 481; Barnes either on business or pleasure; for in such case v. Beirne, 38 La. Ann. 280; Tucker v. Illi- the ordinary rules of trespass or contract would nois C. R. Co. 42 La. Ann. 114. And they apply. Visitors are, in a certain sense, memhave been applied to persons occupying an bers of the family. Looking at the evidence adjoining building, who bave sustained injuries as we have related it, it is manifest that, if the by reason of another building falling against members of the surprise party had passed along and demolishing it. Knoop v. Alter, 47 La. the banquette underneath the gallery of deAnn. 570; Steppe v. Alter, 48 La. Ann. 363. fendant's house, and bad not entered the These are obvious and necessary safeguards the building at all, it would not have fallen, and law has provided for the denizens of towns and plaintiff's daughter would have suffered no cities, to whom old and dilapidated or badly injury; consequently, we must look to some designed and constructed buildings are a con- different principle of law on which, if at all, stant menace while attending to the ordinary the defendant can be held bound. In our and every-day concerns of life. But it is not opinion, the guests of the tenant have no claim readily perceivable upon what principle of duty against the landlord for damages they have or equity these precepts of the Code are to be sustained while on the premises. The guests extended to the accidental occupants of a house, of the tenant are not guests of the landlord. having no contractual relations with either the During the term of the lease the owner may proprietor or his tenant. But it must be ob. I be said to have, for a consideration, parted with fects in gas fittings put in by a former tenant, , with a heavy door on it in a dangerous condition where there is nothing to show that the latter was at the same time, promising to put it in a safe conguilty of negligence in having the work done, or dition, will be liable to a person who goes there to that the landlord knew that there were defects in deliver goods to the tenant, and who is injured by the fittings. Metzger v. Scbultz (Ind. App.) 43 n. the falling of the door. Baird v. Shipman, 33 mi. E. 886.

App. 503. In Gwinnell v. Eamer, L. R. 10 C. P. 658, 32 L. T.N. If the landlord has agreed to keep the premises S. 835, a person went up to the window of a leased in repair, and after notice neglects to do so, he will building for the purpose of conversing with an- be liable to an employee of the tenant, who is inother person in the room, and in so doing stepped jured by the defect. White v. Sprague, 9 N. Y. S. upon a grating which gave away, and be was in- R. 220. jured. It did not appear that the landlord knew of The owner of a wharf which is let under the the unsafe condition of the grating and the lease agreement that the owner will make the necessary contained a covenant binding the tenant to repair. repairs will be liable to a person wbo goes upon The court held that the owner was not liable for the wharf for the purpose of delivering goods on the injury.

board a vessel loading at the wharf who is injured One branch of the question of the landlord's bad by falling into a hole in the planking which is faith is the construction of a building which is not caused by decay and has existed for some time. sufficient for the use to which it is put.

Campbell v. Portland Sugar Co. 62 Me. 552, 16 Am. The owner of a storehouse wbich was erected un- Rep. 503. der bis own superintendence to lease to the United In case a tenant sublets a portion of the premStates government is liable to a person whose ises, and the goods of the subtenant are injured by goods are destroyed by the falling of the building the falling of the walls, he cannot recover of the in consequence of its insufficiency for the purpose landlord for the injury unless the landlord had nofor which it was erected. Carson v. Godley, 26 Pa. tice or knowledge of the subletting, since he was 111, 67 Am. Dec. 404.

under no obligation to keep the premises in repair That case followed the principle of Godley v. for the subtenant. Donaldson v.Wilson, 60 Mich. 86. Hagerty, 20 Pa. 387, 59 Am. Dec. 731, which was the Under the Georgia Code the landlord has the case of the fall of a building used for a government duty of maintaining the premises in repair, and if storehouse and the injury of a laborer at tbe time be permits steps leading to a rented storehouse, and rightfully upon the property.

which also lead to his own storehouse, to get But in the latter case it appeared that the owner out of repair to the injury of one who goes to built loosely, carelessly, unskillfully, and negli- the storehouse to transact business with the tenant, gently, at the same time knowing that the building he will be liable therefor. Archer v. Blalock, 97 was to be used as a government storebouse which Ga. 719. would require a well-constructed building. Of If the landlord bas not been notified by the tencourse such conduct made him guilty of bad faith. ant to repair he cannot be beld liable for injuries Effect of duty to repair.

to a guest of the tenant which were caused by the The agents of a foreign owner having full charge defective condition of the premises. Ploen v. Staff, of a building which they hold for rent, who lease it | 9 Mo. App. 309.

his exercise of the right of ownership. If the ciples of our own statutes. But if, on the tenant be neglectful of the safety of his guests, other hand, the members of the surprise party they have their recourse against him person were uninvited, and to be treated and considally, and not against the owner of the building. ered as trespassers, or mere licensees, the In such case it is the duty of care the occupant plaintiff's only recourse must be against the owes his guest, and not the duty the owner of person by whose tacit permission they were op the building owes to the public, that controls ihe premises. O Connor v. Nlinois C. R. Co. the recourse of an injured party. If, on plain- 44 La. Ann. 339; Snyder v. Natchez, R. Riter tiff's theory, a person, upon invitation of a & T. R. Co. 42' La. Ann. 302. But, in any tenant, should enter any old and dilapidated event, the evidence satisfies our minds that the building, and suffer injury, and the owner defendant, as owner of the building, has exon. would be responsible, the consequences would erated himself from liability by making all the be disastrous to landlords; for who could afford repairs which he supposed to have been necesto lease property under the circumstances, and sary to the safety and security of the building; take the risk of suffering thousands of dollars and, if any fault there was on his part, the in damages for the carelessness or imprudence tenant and his guests contributed in some deof tenants on their failure to make, as in instant gree to the accident by not desisting from case, some trifling repairs, the cost of which rushing out upon the gallery as they did, after he could have easily reimbursed himself from having been warned against the danger of the arrearages of rent in his hands. We are dancing on it. A case for damages is not fully convinced that the articles of the Code made out. on which plaintiff's counsel rely were never It is therefore ordered and decreed that the intended to govern this kind of a case; and this judgment appealed from be annulled and rebecomes more evident when we take into con- versed, and it is further ordered and decreed sideration the article of the Code which counsel that the plaintiff's demands be rejected, at his for the defendant bas cited as being in pari costs in both courts. materia. Counsel has also referred us to several pertinent common-law authorities, but Rehearing denied November 16, 1896. we prefer to rest our decision upon the prin

The owner of an hotel is not liable to the guest of A landlord is not liable to a visitor of his tenant the lessee for injuries caused by a fall into an eleva- for an injury resulting from the condition of the tor well by reason of a defect in the door spring, premises caused by the tenant's own act. Eyre v. although he had agreed to make repairs, if he bad Jordan, 111 Mo. 424. no notice of the defect and it was not shown to If the act of the tenant makes the premises danbave existed any length of time. Hutchinson v. gerous the owner is not liable to a person employed Cummings, 156 Mass. 330.

by the tenant to do work on the premises. HandyWhere the premises were not out of repair when side v. Powers, 145 Mass. 123. they were leased, and the owner made no covenant The owner of a building is not liable for injury to repair, the mere fact that a portion of the out- to an employee of a lessee of one floor who is in. side will became out of repair and fell on a servant jured by attempting to pass between a partition of the tenant will not give him a right of action erected by the lessee and a shaft placed there by against the owner of the building for the injuries. the landlord before the lease, since the act of the Nelson y. Liverpool Brewery Co. L. R. 2C. P. Div. lessee, if anything, caused the premises to be up341, 46 L. J. C. P. N. S. 675, 25 Week. Rep. 877. safe. Ryan v. Wilson, 87 N. Y. 471, 41 Am. Rep.

The owner of land which is leased for a lumber 384, 63 How. Pr. 172, Affirming 13 Jones & S. 273. shed and a way appurtenant to it is not liable for The owner of an hotel who gives the lessee the an injury to a customer of the lessee by reason of right to complete an uncompleted portion of the a defect in the way. Abbott v. Jackson, 84 Me. 449. building is not liable for injuries to a guest who is

In the absence of covenant by the landlord to re- injured by defects resulting solely from the impair, he is not liable to a tenant of the lessee for provement. Glass v. Colman, 14 Wash. 635. injuries received by reason of the premises becoming out of repair. O'Brien v. Capwell, 59 Barb. 497.

Structure for use of public. A child of a tenant cannot recover for injuries There is some tendency by the courts to require caused by the giving way of a railing along a piazza greater care and hold the landlord to a stricter liawhich had been constructed for hanging out bility in case the structure is designed for public clothes, if it was in good condition when the lease use or will be frequented by the public. was made and had been to the knowledge of the Owners of a wharf who let it are liable for injutenant gradually decaying until its condition had ries to an employee of the tenant who is injured by had become dangerous. Flynn v. Hatton, 43 How. reason of defects which are not so hidden that they Pr. 333.

could not have been discovered by such examinaIf the landlord has paid the tenant to repair the tion as the uses to which the wharf will be placed defect, the landlord will not be liable to a visitor of reasonably require. Wendell v. Baxter, 12 Gray, the tenant injured by reason of the defect. Sterger 494. v. Van Siclen, 28 N. Y. S. R. 627.

The owners of a pier are liable for injuries susThe landlord who has leased premises to an ath- tained by reason of its defective construction and letic association is not liable for injuries to a visitor dangerous condition, notwithstanding the premises by falling against a glass door upon slipping on a are in possession of the lessee, who has covenanted walk between the bath room and the dressing to keep them in repair if the defects existed when room, although the door is needlessly standing in the owners leased the property. Moody v. New the passageway, where it does not appear that it York, 43 Barb. 282, 34 How. Pr. 288. was there when the premises were leased. Heath The owner of a wharf who leases it knowing of a v. Metropolitan Exhibition Co. 33 N. Y. S. R. 828. defect in it will be liable to one rightfully using

The owner of a mill is not lis to an employee the wharf for injuries caused by the defect. of the tenant for injuries caused by defects in the Joyce v. Martin, 15 R. I. 558. machinery in the mill. Johnson v. Tacoma Cedar If a pier is in an unsafe condition when it is Lumber Co. 3 Wash. 722.

leased, the owner is liable to a person rightfully

« ForrigeFortsett »