Girardot v. Williams

Decision Date06 June 1938
Docket Number14189.
PartiesGIRARDOT et al. v. WILLIAMS.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

In Department.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.

Action by Viola G. Williams against Frank J. Girardot, administrator of the estate of Arsene C. Girardot, and Ethel G. Kennedy for injuries sustained while the plaintiff, who was a tenant of the defendants, was burning waste paper in an ashpit located on the leased premises. To review an adverse judgment, the defendants bring error.

Reversed and remanded for dismissal.

Bartels, Blood & Bancroft and Arthur H. Laws, all of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

H Berman, Joseph N. Lilly, Fred N. Holland, all of Denver, for defendant in error.

BURKE Chief Justice.

These parties appeared in reverse order in the trial court and are hereinafter referred to as there, or by name.

Plaintiff a tenant in defendants' apartment house, attempting to burn waste paper in an ashpit, received burns about the face hands and arms. Charging this to defendants' negligence she brought this action for $3,000 damages. A jury awarded her $500. To review the judgment thereupon entered this writ is prosecuted. The twelve assignments are argued under four heads: (1) Improper joinder of causes; (2) Improper admission of evidence; (3) Failure of proof of negligence; (4) Proof of contributory negligence. Since we think the third of these is well taken, and hence defendants' motion for non suit should have been sustained, the others need not be considered.

In the two story building in question were sixteen apartments. Of the tenants thereof fourteen burned coal. At the rear is a two story brick structure. In the corner, with the outside walls of the building constituting two of its sides, is the ashpit in question. It has one receiving door near the ground level and another on the second floor. Its measurements are about five by six feet and seven feet in height. In its concrete top are two openings, a chimney, and a shaft extending to the upper receiving door. These doors are each twenty-one by twenty-three inches. The structures are not modern. They have remained in the same condition for over forty years. Defendants did not build them, but took possession only about six months prior to the accident. They had no actual knowledge of any fault or defect therein. Plaintiff rented her apartment and moved in May 21, 1936. She had waste paper and wrappings to dispose of and defendant Kennedy told her to do this by placing same in the pit and dropping a burning paper on top. She placed a carton of papers on the upper porch floor about eight feet from the receiving door, put some of them in, dropped in a burning paper, and was in the act of adding more when a burst of flame came through the door, causing the injuries complained of. The negligence relied upon is failure to provide proper vents to carry off gas and failure to clean out accumulation of ashes. So far as disclosed by the record the pit had always been used as at the time of the accident and as instructed by defendant Kennedy, with no untoward results.

Defendants are chargeable only with reasonable care and are held only to such knowledge as they actually possessed, or such as reasonable persons, from known conditions, should have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • City of Grand Junction v. Lashmett, 16752
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1952
    ...support her charge of negligence on behalf of the defendant? City of Pueblo v. Smith, 57 Colo. 500, 502, 143 P. 281; Girardot v. Williams, 102 Colo. 456, 458, 80 P.2d 433. Counsel on behalf of plaintiff contend that there are additional factual matters involved. They insist that the defenda......
  • Hoffman v. King Resources Co., 73--052
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1974
    ...that the lessee will not discover the condition or realize the risk. Baughman v. Cosler, 169 Colo. 534, 459 P.2d 294; Girardot v. Williams, 102 Colo. 456, 80 P.2d 433; Thum v. Rhodes, 12 Colo.App. 245, 55 P. In viewing the motion for a directed verdict, we must view the evidence in a light ......
  • Baughman v. Cosler
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1969
    ...This problem has heretofore been considered by this court in Thum v. Rhodes, 12 Colo.App. 245, 55 P. 264, and in Girardot v. Williams, 102 Colo. 456, 80 P.2d 433. In Thum this court 'However, an obligation rests upon the landlord not to expose his tenant to danger from defects in the buildi......
  • Conley v. Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • November 14, 1962
    ...the leased premises, he is not liable for injuries resulting from his failure to repair. It also seems to cite Girardot v. Williams, 102 Colo. 456, 80 P.2d 433 (1938), for the proposition that the Colorado Supreme Court has indicated that it will not require a landlord to inspect leased pre......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT