Moore v. M.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1901 |
| Docket Number | 11,808 |
| Citation | 63 Kan. 52,64 P. 975 |
| Parties | ANNA A. MOORE v. M. V. B. PARKER et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1901.
Error from Johnson district court; J. T. BURRIS, judge.
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
LANDLORD AND TENANT -- Liability for Personal Injuries. A landlord is not an insurer or a warrantor, nor is he compelled to exercise constant care and inspection; but if he knows that the premises which he is about to let are defective and in a dangerous condition, especially if such dangerous or defective place is not obvious or discoverable to the tenant by the exercise of ordinary care, and he does not inform the latter of such defective or dangerous place and injury is occasioned thereby to the tenant or a member of his family who is not aware of such defective or dangerous place, while in the exercise of ordinary care, the landlord is liable in damages. The law requires good faith on the part of the landlord toward his tenant.
A. Smith Devenney, for plaintiff in error.
M. V. B. Parker, and I. O. Pickering, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error and her husband were tenants of the defendants, occupying a farm leased by the husband from them on the 3d day of March, 1899. While the plaintiff in error was about her household duties upon said premises, drawing water from a well used for domestic purposes, the platform gave way, precipitating her into the well, from which she sustained personal injuries. She brought this action against the defendants in error, the owners and lessors of the property, to recover damages. The defendants filed a demurrer to her petition in the court below, which was sustained, and she brings the case to this court for review.
The petition, after setting out the lease made by defendants in error to her husband, and the taking possession and occupancy by her husband, herself and their family on or about the 3d day of March, 1899, alleged, in substance, that the well that was intended for use for domestic purposes and situated at the porch of the residence was covered with a wooden platform or planks; that the defendants in error had built the platform over this well and had constructed it of inferior and unsuitable material, selected by them for that purpose and used in its construction by their direction; that the sleepers or stringers under this platform were in a defective and unsafe condition at the time of the leasing and taking possession by plaintiff in error; that the defendants in error knew this, and, notwithstanding their knowledge, negligently, fraudulently and carelessly concealed the truth from her, as well as from her husband, the lessee, and failed to disclose such knowledge to the plaintiff or her husband; that the defects in the sleepers or stringers were not obvious and could not be discovered by the exercise of ordinary care; that the plaintiff in error did not know of such defective material or the dangerous condition of the platform; that in the performance of her household duties she was required to and frequently did draw water from this well, and that upon this occasion, about two months after they had gone into possession, she was in the exercise of ordinary care, and while performing her household duties and in attempting to draw water from this well, the sleepers or stringers under the platform gave way and she was precipitated into the well, whereby she sustained personal injuries.
In deciding this question, we are not called upon to determine the liability of the landlord where he did not have actual knowledge of the defective condition of the premises.
A landlord is not an insurer or a warrantor, nor is he compelled to exercise constant care and inspection; but if he knows that the premises which he is about to let are in a dangerous condition, especially if such danger or defect is not obvious or discoverable to the tenant by the exercise of ordinary care, and does not inform him of such danger, and injury is occasioned thereby to him or a member of his family, the landlord is liable in damages. The law requires good faith on the part of the landlord toward his tenant. The defect existed when the premises were leased, and the defendants in error knew this and intentionally concealed it from their lessee; and it being a defect not discoverable by the lessee or his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trimble v. Spears
...To Kallenbach v. Manne, supra, should be added the following related cases all distinguishable from the case at bar: Moore v. Parker, 63 Kan. 52, 64 P. 975, 53 L.R.A. 778; Murrell v. Crawford, 102 Kan. 118, 169 P. 561; Bogart v. Lyman, 142 Kan. 758, 51 P.2d 918; Waterbury v. Riss & Co., 169......
-
Borders v. Roseberry
...In Kansas we have recognized and applied this exception to impose liability upon the landlord in the following cases: Moore v. Parker, 63 Kan. 52, 64 P. 975; Branstetter v. Robbins, 178 Kan. 8, 283 P.2d 455; Stertz v. Briscoe, 184 Kan. 163, 334 P.2d 357; Tillotson v. Abbott, 205 Kan. 706, 4......
-
Meade v. Montrose
...630, 66 L. R. A. 478, 106 Am. St. Rep. 691; Anderson v. Hayes, 101 Wis. 538, 77 N. W. 891, 70 Am. St. Rep. 930; Moore v. Parker, 63 Kan. 52, 64 Pac. 975, 53 L. R. A. 778; Holzhauer v. Sheeny, 127 Ky. 28, 104 S. W. 1034. And while the landlord is liable for concealed defects of which he has,......
-
Bailey v. Kelly
... ... warranty or covenant to repair, the law has always been that ... there is no implied contract that the premises are suitable ... or fit for occupation, or for the particular use intended, or ... that they are safe for use. ( Moore v. Parker , 63 ... Kan. 52, 64 P. 975, 53 L. R. A. 778; Bowe v ... Hunking , 135 Mass. 380; O'Brien v. Capwell , ... [N. Y. Supr. Ct.] 59 Barb. 497; Jaffe v. Harteau , 56 ... N.Y. 398; Eakin v. Brown , [N. Y. C. P.] 1 E.D. Smith ... 36; 1 Taylor, Landlord and Tenant, 9th ed., § 175a.) ... ...