Pennyroyal Company v. Jordan
| Decision Date | 18 June 1929 |
| Citation | 229 Ky. 693 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
| Parties | Pennyroyal Company v. Jordan. |
1. Landlord and Tenant. — Lessor under lease exempting him from liability for damage caused by water pipes, or for temporary cessation of water in building, or for safety of articles stored therein, held not liable for loss of stock of goods by fire, claimed to have resulted from clogged condition of water pipes laid through hallways which prevented water from running through, since lessor owed tenants no duty of providing water for fire-extinguishing equipment.
2. Landlord and Tenant. — There is no common-law duty resting on landlord to equip or maintain building with auxiliary fire apparatus.
3. Landlord and Tenant. — In absence of negligence on part of landlord, landlord is not liable for loss occasioned by tenant by destruction of his property, and action based on such loss cannot rest on theory of an implied contract.
4. Landlord and Tenant. — Where legal duty of landlord to safeguard tenant's property arises by reason of their relation, contract is mere inducement, and tenant's action for destruction of property rests on tort arising from breach of contractual duty.
Appeal from Christian Circuit Court.
BREATHITT & BREATHITT, JOHN C. DUFFY and C.H. BUSH for appellant.
S.Y. TRIMBLE and SMITH & McKENZIE for appellees.
Reversing.
The appellant, the Pennyroyal Company, was the owner of an apartment and store building in Hopkinsville, Ky. The appellees, Mrs. Frances H. Jordan and Mrs. Alice J. Caruthers, occupied, as tenants, one of the store rooms. The building was destroyed by fire in November, 1927, as was also the stock of millinery owned by the appellees. In a suit against the landlord for the value of the goods so destroyed, the tenants recovered a judgment for $5,000.
When the building was constructed, a two-inch pipe was laid from the water main in the street into and up through the hallways of the building. On each floor there was a valve with a two-inch fire hose and suitable nozzle attached. These were placed in suitable receptacles. The fire which destroyed the building and its contents originated in a building in the adjoining block. It spread throughout that block, and, when it appeared that the apartment building was in danger, some of the occupants undertook to use this fire-fighting apparatus to wet the outer walls and windows, but there was no water coming through.
This action was based on the ground that the appellant owed its tenants the duty of maintaining the equipment in proper condition for use, had negligently permitted the pipe to become clogged, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the destruction of appellees' stock of goods; it being claimed that, had there been water in the pipe, the wetting of the outer wall and windows would have saved the building. Issue was joined on these allegations and much evidence introduced tending to sustain the respective contentions.
Several interesting and voluminous briefs have been filed, principally touching the question of proximate cause. But we do not find it necessary to consider that question, for we are of the opinion that there was no valid cause of action against the appellant. There was no common-law or statutory duty resting upon the landlord to equip or maintain its building with auxiliary fire apparatus. Neither was there any contractual obligation on its part to do so, for in the contract of rental it is expressly provided that the lessor should not be liable for any damages caused from water pipes or other appliances, nor for the temporary cessation of water or heat in the building, nor for the safety of articles stored therein. By the great weight of authority, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial