Evans v. Hill

• Decision Date: 13 June 1938
• Docket Number: 33286
• Citation: 183 Miss. 7,181 So. 847
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: Evans v. Hill.

181 So. 847

183 Miss. 7

Evans v. Hill.

No. 33286

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 13, 1938

(Division B.)

1. LANDLORD AND TENANT.

As respects action for injuries from defect in rented building landlord is not charged with duty of keeping leased building in repair during period of lease, but such duty rests on tenant, and no liability exists on part of landlord as against tenant.

2. LANDLORD AND TENANT.

In pedestrian's action against landlords for injuries sustained when timber from bottom of window sill fell from rented premises, under evidence that cleats used to prevent sill from falling were removed, unknown to landlords, at unknown time and by unknown person, and that wooden pegs in window frame were rotten, but that such fact could not be ascertained by reasonable inspection, "res ipsa loquitur" doctrine was inapplicable.

3. LANDLORD AND TENANT.

In pedestrian's action against landlords for injuries sustained when timber from bottom of window sill fell from rented premises, evidence that cleats used to prevent sill from falling were removed, unknown to landlords, at unknown time and by unknown person, and that wooden pegs in window frame were rotten, but that such fact could not be ascertained by reasonable inspection, required directed verdict for landlords.

HON. THOS. H. JOHNSTON, Judge.

Action by Mrs. W. A. Hill against Julian T. Evans, and wife for injuries sustained when a piece of timber fell from the wooden frame of a window in the rented story of a building owned by defendants, and struck plaintiff's foot. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.

Paine & Paine and M. C. Young, all of Aberdeen, for appellants.

The law in the State of Mississippi is clear that the owner or landlord of a building is not liable for injury to strangers, due to defects in the premises in possession of a tenant unless the landlord assumed or retained this duty by an agreement with the tenant. And the duty rests on the lessee or tenant to make repairs where there is no express covenant by the lessee or landlord to repair.

1 Thompson's Commentaries on Law of Negligence (2d), secs. 1154, 1164.

In the following cases the courts hold that no duty rested on the landlord, who had leased property to a tenant, to inspect the building and keep the same in repair.

Hopman v. Reinhardt, 164 N.Y.S. 676; Rice v. White, 239 S.W. 141; 16 R. C. L., Landlord and Tenant, sec. 584, page 1063.

The appellee in his argument below and we presume in his argument before this court attempted to avoid the force of this law by arguing that in this particular case the landlord did make an inspection of the building for the purpose of seeing whether any repairs were necessary. But the concluding part of Section 585 of 16 Ruling Case Law, page 1065, is a complete answer to this argument, from which we quote as follows: "The landlord must, however, in order to be liable, have bound himself to repair, and a mere reservation of the right to enter and inspect and make such repairs as he may see fit is not deemed the equivalent of a covenant to repair. Nor will mere custom of the lessor to make repairs, without any agreement, suffice to render him liable."

The above general statements of the law are valid and accepted as the law in the State of Mississippi as appears from the following citations:

Jones v. Millsaps, 71 Miss. 10; Amusement Co. v. Rothenberg, 159 Miss. 800; Rich v. Swalm, 161 Miss. 505; Causey v. Norwood, 170 Miss. 874.

We next insist that even though the court should hold that the first proposition of law presented by us is inapplicable, yet we say that if there was any duty resting upon the appellants in this case to make repairs it was only such duty as to use reasonable care in the discovery of defects. The appellants must be shown to have notice of the defects existing in the window sash, or by the exercise of reasonable care appellants would have known of such defects.

16 R. C. L. 1042, sec. 561.

The appellants were not insurers, and were not required to use more care than a prudent man who was not an expert in mechanics or construction might be reasonably called upon to exercise.

Knies v. Lang, 57 A. L. R. 1022; 9 Am. Jur. 224; 2 Restatement of Law, Torts, sec. 365 d.

To uphold the verdict in this case under the facts would be tantamount to requiring appellant to have used extraordinary care and vigilance to have discovered the latent defects, to-wit, the wooden pins which had rotted in the lower rail of the window sash. This requirement is more than the law imposes on the owners of the buildings, we insist.

Odell v. Solomon, 99 N.Y. 635; Daniel v. Jackson Infirmary, 173 Miss. 832. Leftwich & Tubb and Jesse M. Coleman, all of Aberdeen, for appellee.

A traveler using the street has the same right to enjoy such use undisturbed as if he were the owner in fee simple.

Shipley v. Fifty Associates, 101 Mass. 251, 3 Am. Rep. 346; Scott v. Hart, 128 Miss. 353, 91 So. 17; 44 C. J., page 1026, sec. 3867; 13 R. C. L., page 251, sec. 208.

The owner of property must so use it as not to injure others.

9 Am. Jur., page 222, sec. 28, and page 223, sec. 29; Murray v. McShane, 52 Md. 217, 36 Am. Rep. 367.

The owner of a building abutting on a street is under the legal obligation to take reasonable care that it (or parts of it) shall not fall and injure persons lawfully thereon.

45 C. J., page 861, sec. 286, and page 859, sec. 282; Sinkovitz v. Peters Land Co., 5 Ga.App. 788, 64 S.E. 93; Hannen v. Pence, 40 Minn. 127, 12 Am. St. Rep. 717; Soriero v. Penn. Railroad Co., 86 N. J. L. 642, 92 A. 604, L. R. A. 1915C 710; Crow v. Colson, 123 Kan. 702, 256 P. 971, 53 A. L. R. 457; Steppe v. Alter, 48 La. App. 363, 55 A. S. R. 281; Smethurst v. Congregational Church, 148 Mass. 261, 12 A. S. R. 550; Shipley v. Fifty Associates, 106 Mass. 194, 8 A. R. 318; Murray v. Mc-Shane, 52 Md. 217, 36 Am. Rep. 367; Waterhouse v. Schlitz, 12 S.D. 397, 81 N.W. 725, 48 L. R. A. 157; St. Louis, I. R. & S. Co. v. Hopkins, 54 Ark. 209, 15 S.W. 610, 12 L. R. A. 189; Detzur v. Stroh Brewing Co., 119 Mich. 282, 44 L. R. A. 500, 77 N.W. 948; Ruocco v. United Advertising Corp., 98 Conn. 241, 119 A. 48, 30 A. L. R. 1237.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the case at bar.

Waddle v. Sutherland, 156 Miss. 540, 126 So. 201; 20 R. C. L. 187, sec. 156; Penney v. Evans, 172 Miss. 900, 160 So. 779; Railway Co. v. Groome, 97 Miss. 201, 52 So. 703; 20 R. C. L. 78, sec. 69; Feeney v. N.Y. Waist House, 105 Conn. 647, 136 A. 554, 50 A. L. R. 1539; DeGlopper v. Nashville R. &. L. Co., 123 Tenn. 633, 134 S.W. 609, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 913; 45 C. J. 1201, note 21; Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Holzenkamp, 17 Ohio St. 379, 113 A. S. R. 980, 78 N.E. 980, 113 A. S. R. 986, note; Carroll v. Chicago B. & N. R. Co., 99 Wis. 399, 67 A. S. B. 872; Stair v. Kane, 156 F. 100; Waller v. Ross, 100 Minn. 7, 110 N.W. 252, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 721, note; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 54 Ark. 209, 15 S.W. 610, 12 L. R. A. 189; Furkovich v. Bingham Coal & Lbr. Co., 45 Utah 89, 143 P. 121, L. R. A. 1915B 426; Leighton v. Deon, 102 A. 565, L. R. A. 1918B 922, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 594, 595, note; Potter v. Rorabough-Wiley D. G. Co., 112 P. 613, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 45; McCrorey v. Garrett, 109 Va, 645, 64 S.E. 978, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 139, note; Anderson v. McCarthy D. G. Co., 49 Wash. 398, 95 P. 325, 126 A. S. R. 870; Lyttle v. Denney, 222 Pa, 395, 71 A. 841, 128 A. S. R. 814; Griffen v. Manice, 166 N.Y. 188, 59 N.E. 925, 82 A. S. R. 630.

When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the case must be submitted to the jury; the doctrine may never become the ground of a directed verdict.

45 C. J. 1223, sec. 784; Sweeney v. Irving, 228 U.S. 233, 33 S.Ct. 416, 57 L.Ed. 815, Ann. Cas. 1914D 905; Page v. Camp Mfg. Co., 180 N.C. 330, 104 S.E. 667; 45 C. J. 1224; Hughes v. A. City & S. R. Co., 85 N. J. L. 212, 89 A. 769, L. R. A. 1916A 927; Ridge v. Norfolk S. R. Co., 167 N.C. 510, 83 S.E. 762, L. R. A. 1917E 215; Kohner v. Capital Traction Co., 62 L. R. A. 875; Penney v. Evans, 172 Miss. 900, 160 So. 779; A. & V. R. Co. v. Groome, 97 Miss. 201, 52 So. 70S; Paducah Traction Co. v. Baker, 130 Ky. 360, 113 S.W. 449, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1185; Turner v. So. Power Co., 154 N.C. 131, 69 S.E. 767, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 848; Boyd v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 40 Or. 126, 57 L. R, A. 619, 66 P. 576; Kleinman v. Banner Laundry Co., 150 Minn. 515, 186 N.W. 123, 23 A. L. R. 479; Riggsby v. Tritton, 143 Va. 903, 129 S.E. 493, 45 A. L. R. 280; Keithley v. Hettinger, 133 Minn. 36, 157 N.W. 897, Ann. Cas. 1918D 376,

Although the landlord may be under no duty to repair in the absence of an express covenant so to do, if he does make repairs he is liable for want of due care in making same.

Green v. Long, 152 Miss. 117, 118 So. 705; Horton v. Early, 39 Okla, 99, 134 P. 436, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 314, Ann. Cas. 1915D 825; Ruff Drug Co. v. Western Iowa Co., 191 Iowa 1035, 181 N.W. 408, 15 A. L. R. 962, note, 971.

The owner of property is liable in cases of injury, if he leases premises in a dangerous condition.

Restatement Law of Torts, sec. 379, pages 1013, 1015 and 1016; Standard Oil Co. v. Decell, 175 Miss. 251, 166 So. 379; 16 R. C. L. 1076, sec. 594; Hannen v. Pence, 40 Minn. 127, 12 Am. St. Rep. 717.

The building or structure was a nuisance, and the owner or landlord is liable for injuries resulting therefrom although he may have leased it with a covenant to repair.

Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, sec. 347; Mitchell v. Brady, 124 Ky. 411, 99 S.W. 266, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 751; Howard v Central Amusement Co., 224 Mass. 344, 112 N.E. 857, 7 A. L. R. 195; Howard v. Redden, 93 Conn. 604, 107 A. 509, 7 A. L. R. 198; Mullen v. St. John, 57...