Clifton v. Charles E. Bainbridge Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36940,36940 |
| Parties | Katherine CLIFTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. CHARLES E. BAINBRIDGE COMPANY, Inc., Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The lessor of a business building, in the absence of an agreement to do so, is not obligated to keep the leased portion of the building in repair and is not liable to the lessee for damages to the property in the premises alleged to have arisen from failure to do so.
2. The lessor of a portion of a business building is exempt from liability for damages by rain water to lessee's property in the leased premises where the lease contract provides that the lessor shall not be liable for damage to property in the premises by water or rain which may leak, issue or flow from any part of the building of which the premises leased are a part, or from pipes or plumbing works of the same. Such provision is not contrary to statute or public policy.
3. Evidence and record examined and found insufficient to justify a submission of the issues to the jury and fails to support the judgment rendered.
Appeal from the District Court of Muskogee County; E. G. Carroll, Judge.
An action by Charles E. Bainbridge Company, Inc., against Katherine Clifton to recover damages by water to merchandise in leased store premises alleged to have been caused by negligence and failure of the deendant owner to keep the building in repair. Judgment was for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed. Evidence held insufficient to sustain the judgment and same is reversed with direction to enter judgment for defendant. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Rhodes, Crowe, Hieronymus & Holloway, Philip N. Landa, Lyman B. Beard, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Kelly Brown, Muskogee, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by Katherine Clifton from a verdict and judgment for the sum of $897.24, rendered against her in the District Court of Muskogee County in an action instituted by Charles E. Bainbridge Company, Inc., to recover for damages to merchandise, men's suits, caused by water leaking thereon while located in a leased portion of a two-story business building owned by defendant.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was obligated to keep the leased premises in repair and that the damages was caused by the failure and neglect of the defendant in allowing the roof and other areas in the building over the portion occupied by plaintiff, and over which it had no control, to become in a state of disrepair and without proper drainage facilities, by reason of which water accumulated on the roof and the area over plaintiff's leased premises and leaked through the ceiling. The defendant answered, generally denying the allegations of plaintiff's petition, but admitting the execution of the written lease contract between the parties and denying that she was under any duty to keep the leased premises in repair. The lease contract was for a period of five years and covered store rooms 216 and 218 West Broadway in the City of Muskogee, being on the ground floor of the Raymond Building. The damage was discovered following a heavy rain and wind and the evidence indicates that the damage arose principally by reason of two clogged or stopped up water drains intended to carry rain water falling in or on what is referred to as a light court, a portion of which extended to and over the Bainbridge store premises. No previous damage had occurred from such source.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the defendant interposed a demurrer thereto, which demurrer was overruled, and at the conclusion of all the evidence the defendant renewed her demurrer to the evidence, which was overruled, and moved the court for an instructed verdict in her favor, which motion was overruled, with exception.
The plaintiff in error, in support of her assignments of error, presents as her first proposition the following:
'The court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for a directed verdict'
and asserts that there was no statutory or common-law duty imposed on the landlord to keep the leased business building in repair, and that the only statutory provision relating to the duty of a landlord to repair leased premises is Title 41 O.S.1951 §§ 31-32, which statutes have been construed not to apply to business buildings.
Plaintiff in error cites, among others, the case of Barker v. Findley, 136 Okl. 55, 275 P. 1054, which states that the statutes above referred to have no application to business buildings and that at common law, in the absence of any agreement of the parties, the landlord is under no obligation to his tenant to keep the premises in repair.
In the opinion in Wick v. Wasson, 193 Okl. 209, 142 P.2d 124, 125, it is said:
'It is the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction that a landlord of a building leased or rented for business purposes is not, in the absence of a contract, under any obligation to keep the building in repair or liable for any loss or damage caused by defects therein. Price v. MacThwaite Oil & Gas Co., 177 Okl. 495, 61 P.2d 177; Nehring v. Ferguson, 170 Okl. 383, 40 P.2d 1040; Young v. Beattie, 172 Okl. 250, 45 P.2d 470.
'As said in Nehring v. Ferguson, supra: 'A landlord who rents rooms in a business building for manufacturing purposes, in the absence of any agreement between the parties, is under no obligation to his tenant to keep the premises in repair and is not liable for injury to an employee of the tenant caused by said defects.''
Defendant in error, in response to the proposition advanced by plaintiff in error says that it, lessee, only had control of fifty feet of the first floor of the building, and quotes as applicable to the facts from 32 Am.Jur. 561, § 688, and cites, with other decisions, the case of Staples v. Baty, 206 Okl. 288, 242 P.2d 705, 706, which holds:
'Where the landlord retains possession and control of a portion of the leased premises for use in common by different tenants, he has the duty to use ordinary care to maintain such portion of the premises in a safe condition and is responsible for injury or damage to a tenant which results from his negligent failure to perform such duty.'
It will be observed from reading this case and cases cited therein that the building involved was used for dwelling purposes and that the rule announced therein is limited in its application to that portion of the premises retained by the landlord, such as halls, stairways and like purposes, for use in common by different tenants. The record in the present case does not show any portion of the building to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foland v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
...a prairie fire statute. Sunlight was cited in upholding a lease clause exempting a lessor from liability in Clifton v. Charles E. Bainbridge Co., 297 P.2d 398 (Okl.1956). The lessee had contended that the clause violated Title 15 § 212 of the Oklahoma statutes, which declares certain contra......