Allen v. William H. Hall Free Library
| Decision Date | 03 June 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 8397.,8397. |
| Citation | 26 A.2d 751 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. WILLIAM H. HALL FREE LIBRARY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Alexander L. Churchill, Judge.
Action of trespass on the case for negligence by Myra Allen against the William H. Hall Free Library. Defendant's demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and plaintiff filed an amended declaration. Defendant's demurrer to the amended declaration was also sustained, and plaintiff excepts to that ruling.
Exception overruled and case remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.
Samson Nathanson and William A. Gunning, both of Providence, for plaintiff.
William S. Flynn and Christopher J. Brennan, both of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence. Defendant demurred to the plaintiff's declaration and its demurrer was sustained. Plaintiff thereupon filed an amended declaration to which the defendant demurred. This demurrer was also sustained. Plaintiff is here on her exception to this ruling.
The grounds on which the demurrer was sustained by the justice of the superior court were, substantially, that the plaintiff's declaration fails to aver any duty owing by defendant to the plaintiff, any negligent breach of such duty, any acts of omission or commission by the defendant amounting in law to negligence, and finally it fails to set out a cause of action against the defendant.
Plaintiff alleges in her declaration, among other things, that the defendant is the owner of an old building; that plaintiff is an employee of a tenant of the defendant who occupies the ground floor of said building; that said building contains a system of lead water piping; that defendant, by reason of the passage of time, knew, or had reason to know, that said pipes would become in a state of disrepair and cause water to leak into the premises occupied by the plaintiff's employer; that the sole and exclusive control of the general water piping, which extended throughout the building and which was not a part of the premises demised to her employer, was in the defendant; that it was the duty of the defendant not to negligently allow said piping to become in a state of disrepair so that water would escape into the premises of the plaintiff's employer and make the floor dangerous and slippery to walk upon; that the defendant neglected such duty; that by reason thereof said piping became in a state of disrepair and caused water to flow on to the floor of the premises of plaintiff's employer, where plaintiff was then working, and that the plaintiff, while in the exercise of due care, slipped on such wet floor and was severely injured.
It is a general rule of law that: "A possessor of land, who leases a part thereof and retains in his own control any other part which is necessary to the safe use of the leased part, is subject to liability to his lessee and others lawfully upon the land with the consent of the lessee or a sublessee for bodily harm caused to them by a dangerous condition upon that part of the land retained in the lessor's control, if the lessor by the exercise of reasonable care (a) could have discovered the condition and the risk involved therein, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pomfret v. Fletcher
...in a reasonably safe condition consistent with its prospective use. Reek v. Lutz, 90 R.I. 340, 158 A.2d 145; Allen v. William H. Hall Free Library, 68 R.I. 80, 26 A.2d 751; Leonick v. Manville Jenckes Corp., 60 R.I. 247, 198 A. 245. The obligation extends to passageways or sidewalks outside......
-
Fuller v. Housing Authority of City of Providence
...in a reasonably safe condition consistent with its prospective use. Reek v. Lutz, 90 R.I. 340, 158 A.2d 145; Allen v. William H. Hall Free Library, 68 R.I. 80, 26 A.2d 751. This duty has been extended to include the proper maintenance of passageways or sidewalks outside the demised premises......
-
Reek v. Lutz
...duty to keep such portions in a reasonably safe condition. Lawton v. Vadenais, 84 R.I. 116, 121, 122 A.2d 138; Allen v. William H. Hall Free Library, 68 R.I. 80, 26 A.2d 751; Leonick v. Manville Jenckes Corp., 60 R.I. 247, 198 A. 245. The question here is whether plaintiff has stated a duty......
-
Dodge v. Parish of Church of Transfiguration
...guests has a duty to keep such portions in a reasonably safe condition. Reek v. Lutz, 90 R.I. 340, 158 A.2d 145; Allen v. William H. Hall Free Library, 68 R.I. 80, 26 A.2d 751. This duty also extends to those ways which may be outside of the demised premises. Lawton v. Vadenais, 84 R.I. 116......