Powell v. Stivers
| Decision Date | 07 December 1951 |
| Parties | POWELL v. STIVERS et al. Civ. 18619. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Cameron & Perkins, Long Beach, for appellant.
Ball, Hunt and Hart, Long Beach, Clarence S. Hunt, Long Beach, for respondents.
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after respondents' motion for a nonsuit had been granted in an action to recover damages for personal injuries.
Respondents are owners of a building in the city of Long Beach known as the Masonic Temple. Appellant is a member of an unincorporated social group known as Palos Verdes Court No. 69 of the Order of Amaranth. For over ten years this group has leased and occupied a large, furnished, third floor room in the Temple for the purpose of holding fortnightly meetings. At the south end of the room is a raised platform on one corner of which is situated, among other objects, a piano, bench, chair and floor lamp. Between the piano and the south wall is a two-foot space across which extends a cord from an electric outlet in the south wall to a lamp standing next to the piano keyboard. Inasmuch as the cord was much longer than was necessary to reach the lamp, a surplus of several yards thereof was loosely wadded together and lay on the floor near the piano and partially extended into the two-foot passageway.
On the night of April 3, 1950, appellant was in attendance at a meeting of the order of the Amaranth in its room in the Temple. While engaged in placing flowers on the piano and while traversing the space between piano and wall, appellant tripped over the loose cord, fell and received extensive injuries.
The parties are in agreement that the relationship existing between respondents, as owners and managers of the Temple, and appellant, as a member of the Order of Amaranth hiring the meeting room, is that of landlord and tenant in common. De Motte v. Arkell, 77 Cal.App. 610, 247 P. 254. Also, they are in accord as to the statement of the universal principle that a landlord is generally exempt from liability for injury to a tenant caused by defects in the leased premises unless the landlord fails to disclose concealed defects in the premises, or a hidden danger thereon, known to the lessor at the time of making the lease and which is not apparent to the lessee. Shotwell v. Bloom, 60 Cal.App.2d 303, 140 P.2d 728. But the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inglis v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 12
...that an association constitutes no legal entity apart from its members; DeMotte v. Arkell, 77 Cal.App. 610, 247 P. 254; Powell v. Stivers, 108 Cal.App.2d 72, 238 P.2d 34; Allen v. Paradise Grange, No. 490, Inc., 159 Cal.App.2d 247, 323 P.2d 468. In each an unincorporated association was the......
-
Merrill v. Buck
...dangers were so open and obvious to reasonable inspection that no question of a latent defect could be raised (e. g., Powell v. Stivers, 108 Cal.App.2d 72, 238 P.2d 34 (visible coils of cord lying in the passageway); De Motte v. Arkell, 77 Cal.App. 610, 247 P. 254 (shrunken and warped woode......
-
Hanson v. Luft
...Grange No. 490, Inc., 159 Cal.App.2d 247, 250, 323 P.2d 468; Hogan v. Miller, 153 Cal.App.2d 107, 114, 314 P.2d 230; Powell v. Stivers, 108 Cal.App.2d 72, 238 P.2d 34; Colburn v. Shuravlev, 24 Cal.App.2d 298, 74 P.2d It is also the rule that the landlord's liability to invitees of the tenan......
-
Iden v. Mondrian Hotel, B207387 (Cal. App. 1/7/2009)
...of those cases either predate Rowland, and rely on principles of questionable viability after Rowland (see, e.g., Powell v. Stivers (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 72, 73-74 [precluding recovery against landlord based on now disfavored doctrine that tenant assumes all risk to discover patent danger])......