Keithley v. Hettinger
| Decision Date | 12 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,624 - (59) |
| Citation | 157 N.W. 897,133 Minn. 36 |
| Parties | ARTHUR KEITHLEY v. OSCAR E. HETTINGER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Polk county to recover $3,790. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Watts, J., and a jury which returned the special verdicts mentioned in the opinion and a general verdict in favor of plaintiff for $102.50. Plaintiff's motion for judgment for $2,102.50 notwithstanding the general verdict was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Landlord and tenant -- licensee -- action for loss from fire.
1. The dwelling house upon plaintiff's farm was destroyed by fire while defendant was in possession of it by permission of plaintiff's tenant who was entitled to possession under his lease. Held that defendant was a licensee and his possession not wrongful; held, further, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the loss without proof of negligence.
Negligence question for jury.
2. Even if the facts warranted the application of the doctrine res ipsa loqitur, the question whether defendant was negligent was still a question of fact for the jury and not of law for the court.
Verdict -- general and special.
3. Plaintiff sued for the loss resulting from the fire, and, in the complaint, also set forth another independent cause of action. The jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff for the amount allowed upon the other cause of action, but included nothing therein for the loss resulting from the fire. By direction of the court they also returned a special verdict fixing the amount of loss resulting from the fire. The jury not having included such loss in the general verdict, and not having found that it resulted from the negligence of defendant, plaintiff is not entitled to judgment against defendant for the amount thereof.
A. A Miller, for appellant.
F. C Massee and W. E. Rowe, for respondent.
Plaintiff rented his farm to defendant under a written lease, by the terms of which the tenancy terminated on February 28, 1914, and defendant agreed to surrender possession thereof on that date. Before the expiration of defendant's term, plaintiff rented the farm to one Aeschliman for a term beginning on March 1, 1914, and by the provisions of the lease Aeschliman became entitled to the possession thereof from and after that date. In the early part of March, Aeschliman sought possession of the farm, but defendant was not ready to remove therefrom, and, after some negotiation, it was agreed between defendant and Aeschliman that defendant should remain upon the farm until March 17, and remove therefrom on that date. Plaintiff had no knowledge of this arrangement and never assented thereto. On March 14, 1914, and while defendant still remained in possession of the premises, the dwelling house thereon was destroyed by fire. Plaintiff brought this suit and set forth two causes of action: One to recover damages for defendant's failure to plow a portion of the farm which he had contracted to plow; and the other to recover for the damages to the farm caused by the destruction of the dwelling house which he alleged had been burned through defendant's negligence. By direction of the court, the jury returned a special verdict in which they fixed the damages for failure to do the plowing at $102.50, and the damages for the destruction of the dwelling house at $2,000. They also returned a general verdict for plaintiff for $102.50, the amount found due on account of the failure to plow; but did not include therein the damages on account of the destruction of the dwelling house.
Plaintiff made a motion for judgment upon the special verdict for the loss resulting from the fire, notwithstanding the general verdict. This motion was denied and judgment entered for the amount of the general verdict only. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment and insists that the loss resulting from the fire should have been included therein.
Plaintiff contends that defendant's possession, at the time of the fire, was wrongful; and that the fact that the fire occurred during such possession entitled plaintiff, as a matter of law, to recover the amount of the loss without proof of negligence.
At the time of the fire, Aeschliman was entitled to the possession of the premises under his lease; and defendant was in actual possession of them under the arrangement which he had made with Aeschliman. Under these circumstances, defendant was at least a licensee; and his possession was not wrongful, even if it would have been wrongful in the absence of such an arrangement.
One who is upon the premises of another as a licensee is not liable for the damages caused by a fire which occurs, without negligence on his part, while he is occupying the premises as such licensee. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 116 Minn. 397, 133 N.W. 849. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial