Baker v. Moeller

• Decision Date: 15 April 1909
• Citation: 101 P. 231,52 Wash. 605
• Parties: BAKER v. MOELLER.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

101 P. 231

52 Wash. 605

BAKER v. MOELLER.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 15, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by Charles Baker against William Moeller. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the amended complaint, and dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Vince H. Faben, C. K Poe, and S. H. Kelleran, for appellant.

Harrison Bostwick, for respondent.

CROW J.

Action by Charles Baker against William Moeller to recover damages for personal injuries. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the amended complaint and dismissed the action. The plaintiff has appealed.

The only question before us is whether the amended complaint states a cause of action. The appellant alleged that the respondent owned on the tide lands of Seattle a building equipped as a mill, which on August 15, 1904, he leased to appellant's employer, knowing it would be used as a sawmill, and that workmen would be employed therein that the building and machinery were unsafe for the purpose for which they were leased, or for any purpose where men were to move about; that the danagers consisted of exposed and unguarded holes in the floor, designedly left to let sawdust and refuse into the waters of Elliott Bay; that a dock upon which the mill was built was directly over, and a number or feet above, tide water; that sawdust and refuse were permitted to fall through the holes, and accumulate under the mill, to be washed away by the tide; that on October 5, 1904 sawdust had accumulated to such an extent as to conceal the holes; that respondent, as an employé of the lessee, then engaged in operating a sticker machine, stepped upon the sawdust obscuring one of the holes; that he lost his balance fell against the knives of the machine, and was injured; that the machine was unguarded, old, and worn; that appellant had been working upon it only about one hour; that he had no knowledge of the holes; that never before had he operated that machine or any similar machine; and that he did not know the dangers surrounding him. The amended complaint does not state a cause of action. It make no allegation that the respondent as lessor contracted to make repairs; that he rented the building for any public use; that he caused the holes to become filled with sawdust and obscured; that he retained control over any portion of the leased premises; that he operated or was interested in the operation of the mill; that he was guilty of fraud or deceit in making the lease; that the alleged holes and defective condition of the machinery were not apparent to the lessee; that the lessor concealed any latent defects known to him; that the lessee did not have knowledge of the condition of the mill; or that there was any contractual relation between the appellant and the respondent upon which the former could predicate a claim of negligence against the latter. Appellant entered upon the premises only as employé of the lessee. He was in no better position to maintain an action for damages than his employer would have been if injured. As far as the respondent's liability is concerned, appellant entered under the same title and assumed the same risks as the lessee.

'In the absence of covenant on the part of the landlord to repair, no active duty is imposed on him to disclose apparent defects which are equally within the knowledge of the tenant or which the latter might ascertain by due diligence, the rule of caveat emptor applying in such cases with full force; and in such cases the landlord is...