Oerter v. Ziegler
| Decision Date | 25 July 1910 |
| Citation | 109 P. 1058,59 Wash. 421 |
| Parties | OERTER v. ZIEGLER. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke Judge.
Action by Henry N. Oerter against Louis Ziegler. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Robertson Miller & Rosenhaupt, for appellant.
Roche & Onstine, for respondent.
This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries. At the close of the plaintiff's testimony the court directed a judgment in favor of the defendant, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
The material facts disclosed by the appellant's testimony are the following: The respondent is the owner of a five-story brick building in the city of Spokane, known as the 'Ziegler block,' the basement of which is occupied by different tenants. A stairway leads from the street or sidewalk to these different tenements. This stairway is 7 feet in width and consists of 10 concrete steps with a 10-inch tread and an 8-inch riser, with an iron railing extending the full length of the stair on either side. On the evening of January 30, 1908, the appellant descended this stairway, accompanied by a friend, for the purpose of entering a barber shop in the basement. The appellant had patronized this same shop several times a week for a period of five years in all sorts and conditions of weather. As they descended the stair together, the appellant's companion slipped on the third of fourth step, and caused the appellant to fall, resulting in the injury complained of. The appellant contends that the steps were worn and defective, that they were covered with a thin coating of ice, and that the respondent negligently failed to protect them from the elements by an awning or otherwise.
When a tenant is given the exclusive possession of demised premises, as a general rule, the landlord is not liable for injuries to third persons, arising from defects in the premises, unless such defects existed at the commencement of the term, or unless the landlord is obligated by the terms of his lease to make repairs. Ward v. Hinkleman, 37 Wash. 375, 79 P. 956.
On the other hand, the weight of authority holds that, where different portions of a building are leased to different tenants, the landlord must use due diligence to keep the passageways, and such parts of the building as are used by the different tenants in common, in a reasonably safe condition, and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iwai v. State
...Am.Rep. 344 (1883). Early Washington cases followed this traditional rule in the landlord-tenant context. See, e.g., Oerter v. Ziegler, 59 Wash. 421, 109 P. 1058 (1910); Schedler v. Wagner, 37 Wash.2d 612, 225 P.2d 213, 230 P.2d 600, 26 A.L.R.2d 604 In 1975, this court flatly rejected the M......
-
Durkin v. Lewitz
...Purcell v. English, 1882, 86 Ind. 34; Rosenberg v. Chapman National Bank, 1927, 126 Me. 403, 139 A. 82, 58 A.L.R. 1405; Oerter v. Ziegler, 1910, 59 Wash. 421, 109 P. 1058; Morse v. Houghton, 1912, 158 Iowa 279, 136 N.W. 675; Shindelbeck v. Moon, 1877, 32 Ohio St. 264; Rankin v. Ittner Realt......
-
Mucsi v. GRAOCH ASSOCIATES LTD. PARTNERSHIP
...1054. The Massachusetts rule was adopted by this Court in 1910, but was later rejected in the 1975 Geise decision. See Oerter v. Ziegler, 59 Wash. 421, 109 P. 1058 (1910); see also Schedler v. Wagner, 37 Wash.2d 612, 225 P.2d 213, 230 P.2d 600 (1950). It was then this Court adopted the Conn......
-
Geise v. Lee
...of ice and snow from the common areas unless the landlord has assumed the duty to do so. Schedler v. Wagner, Supra; Oerter v. Ziegler, 59 Wash. 421, 109 P. 1058 (1910); Cramer v. Van Parys, 7 Wash.App. 584, 500 P.2d 1255 (1972). In Cramer the court approved the following jury instruction as......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Zupan Enters., Inc., 107 Wn. App. 854, 28 P.3d 799 (2001), review denied, 145 Wn.2d 1027 (2002): 4.5(1)(b)(iv) Oerter v. Ziegler, 59 Wash. 421, 109 P. 1058 (1910): 4.5(1)(b)(v) Oestreich v. Ocean Shores Estates, Inc., 83 Wn.2d 143, 516 P.2d 507 (1973): 6.8(1) Old Nat'l Bank of Wash. v. A......
-
§4.5 - The Status of the Entrant as Invitee, Licensee, or Trespasser
...undertaken to do so. See Schedler v. Wagner, 37 Wn.2d 612, 225 P.2d 213 (1950), aff'd on reh'g, 37 Wn.2d 612 (1951); Oerter v. Ziegler, 59 Wash. 421, 109 P. 1058 (1910). The modern trend, known as the Connecticut rule, set forth in Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383, 128 A. 705 (1925), and......