Capen v. Hall

• Decision Date: 01 July 1899
• Citation: 21 R.I. 364,43 A. 847
• Parties: CAPEN v. HALL et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

43 A. 847

21 R.I. 364

CAPEN

v. HALL et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 1, 1899.

Trespass on the case for negligence by Carrie B. Capen against William H. Hall and others. Demurrer to declaration sustained.

Page & Page and Arthur dishing, for plaintiff.

Bassett & Mitchell, for defendants.

TILLINGHAST, J. This is trespass on the case for negligence. The declaration alleges, in substance, that defendants had the care, control, and management of a certain business block in Providence, in which they let rooms, tenements, stores, and offices to various tenants, and that they extended an invitation, express or implied, to the public, to make use of the entries, hallways, and stairways in visiting said tenants. It also alleges that the plaintiff, while using the same, and while departing from a visit to one of the tenants in said block, being in the exercise of due care, suddenly tripped and fell, owing to the insufficient light in said entries, hallways, and stairways. The declaration further alleges that it was the duty of defendants to keep said entries, hallways, and stairways lighted, so that a person using the same with due care should not be injured, and, more particularly, that it was the duty of defendants on the day in question to keep said entries, etc., lighted, so that plaintiff, who was then and there coming away from certain tea rooms in said block, after having been there for a lawful purpose, should not be injured. It then alleges the failure of the defendants to discharge said duty, and the consequent injury to the plaintiff for which she sues. The defendants demur to the declaration on the ground that it is not the duty of defendants to keep said entries, hallways, and stairways lighted. It is to be observed that the declaration does not allege that there was any structural defect of any sort in the entries, hallways, or stairways of said building, or anything in the surroundings which called for special care on the part of the defendants, but only that said hallways, etc., were insufficiently lighted. The bald question raised, therefore, is whether it was the duty of the defendants, as matter of law, to keep said entries and stairways lighted. If it was, it becomes the duty of all landlords and owners of buildings, who retain general control of the hallways and stairways thereof, to see that the same are properly lighted at all times when they may be rightfully used, notwithstanding they are in all respects inherently safe and convenient. We are inclined to the opinion that such a requirement would be unreasonable, and that the law does not impose so onerous a burden as this upon the owners of buildings. That they must so construct their buildings as to render them reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are permitted to be used— as to strangers, at any rate, who are rightfully upon the premises—is evidently a reasonable requirement, and one which the law devolves upon them. Tayl. Landl. & Ten. (8th Ed.) § 175; Monteith v. Finkbeiner (Sup.) 21 N. Y. Supp. 288; Alperin v. Earle, 55 Hun, 211, 8 N. Y. Supp. 51; Henkel v. Murr, 31 Hun, 30; Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N. Y. 269, 29 N. E. 104; Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33. As between...