DiLlon v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 06 December 1881
• Citation: 11 Mo.App. 246
• Parties: THOMAS E. DILLON ET AL., Plaintiffs in Error, v. CHARLES L. HUNT, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

11 Mo.App. 246

THOMAS E. DILLON ET AL., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.CHARLES L. HUNT, Defendant in Error.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Dec. 6, 1881.

1. Every owner of fixed property must so use his property as not to create a nuisance, or work a trespass upon the property of adjacent owners.

2. Where a proprietor undertakes to do that upon his land which is in its nature dangerous to adjacent proprietors, he must use reasonable care to work no trespass upon their possession, and it is immaterial, in such a case, whether the work be done by the proprietor or by an independent contractor.

3. A petition which states that certain walls upon land owned by and in possession of the defendant, were left standing in a dangerous condition, and were a dangerous nuisance; that it was the defendant's duty to remove the walls; that he permitted certain persons to go upon his premises for the purpose of removing the walls; that he had good reason to know that these persons intended to adopt a dangerous method of removal; that this dangerous method was adopted, and he knowingly permitted them to proceed with the work of removal by that process; that these persons, negligently and unskilfully pursuing this method, caused a part of the walls to fall upon the adjacent premises, leased and occupied by the plaintiff, thus injuring his goods therein stored, states a good cause of action.

ERROR to the St. Louis Circuit Court, THAYER, J.

Reversed and remanded.

J. D. JOHNSON and C. M. NAPTON, for the plaintiffs in error.

B. R. DAVENPORT, for the defendant in error.

THOMPSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question we have to consider in this case is, whether the petition states a cause of action. It states that, at the dates hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiffs were the lessees and occupiers of a store-room in which they had a stock of goods, and that the defendant was the owner of an adjoining building five stories high. It then continues as follows:--

“Plaintiffs further state that on or about the fourteenth day of November, 1877, the interior and combustible portion of said building, owned by defendant as aforesaid, were destroyed by fire, and certain interior and exterior brick walls and chimneys were left standing; that from the time of said fire until the seventeenth day of November, 1877, said walls and chimneys were, as the defendant then and there well knew, in an unsafe, insecure, and dangerous condition, and were a nuisance, and liable at any time to fall over and upon adjoining premises, and cause injury to the person and property of others; that the defendant was then and there in possession of said premises and the said walls and chimneys situated thereon, and had full and exclusive control and direction thereof; that on or about the seventeenth day of November, 1877, said defendant allowed and permitted certain persons to enter upon said premises for the purpose of removing said walls and chimneys and abating said nuisance, and said persons tore down said walls, and in so doing negligently and unskilfully pushed, or threw, or caused the same or portions thereof to fall over and upon the said house occupied by the said plaintiffs as aforesaid, thereby crushing and destroying said house and covering the said chattels contained therein with the debris thereof, and of the said walls and chimneys; that the defendant knowingly and negligently suffered and permitted said persons to go upon his said premises and tear down said walls and chimneys, and that their action enured to his benefit, and that it was the duty of the said defendant to abate said nuisance and remove said walls and chimneys in a proper manner and without detriment to another. And plaintiffs aver that said defendant either knew, or had good reason to know, that said persons who undertook to tear down said walls intended to adopt, and did adopt, an improper, unsafe, and dangerous method of removing and tearing down the same, and, nevertheless, said defendant, wholly neglecting his duty as the owner of said premises as aforesaid, knowingly permitted said work to be proceeded with, with the result aforesaid.”

It is clear that this petition states a good cause of action. Every owner of fixed property is under a general duty to so use his property as not to create a nuisance, or work a trespass upon the property of adjacent owners, or endanger persons passing...