Rosenfield v. Arrol
| Citation | 46 N.W. 768,44 Minn. 395 |
| Parties | Michael Rosenfield and another v. Charles F. Arrol |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1890 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of St Paul, refusing a new trial after a trial by the court and judgment of $ 100 ordered for plaintiffs.
Order affirmed.
Brown & Schrader, for appellant.
Charles Bechhoefer, for respondents.
It is not argued on this appeal that the court below erred in any of its rulings upon such questions of law as were presented during the trial, nor is it claimed that the order for judgment was incorrect, if the findings of fact were justified by the testimony. Appellant's contention is that they were not; that the witnesses wholly failed to show his negligence; and further, that, from the undisputed testimony, it affirmatively appeared that the respondents had themselves contributed to the injury. Very little need be said upon either of these positions. Plaintiffs and defendant held leases for different floors of the same building. The plaintiffs occupied, as merchants, the ground floor and basement, while defendant used the third floor for storing furniture, he having previously resided there. Usually this floor could be reached by either of two doors, but, at the time of the flooding, one of these doors had been securely nailed up by defendant. The key to the other door, which was supposed to be and undoubtedly was locked, was in defendant's custody. He had exclusive control and possession of the third floor, and of the room thereon in which a faucet was turned by some one, from which the water ran upon the floor, and thence down up on plaintiffs' goods. Within the few days immediately preceding this accident, the furniture above mentioned had been sold at public auction, upon the premises, and with defendant's permission. He had also, after the auction loaned his key to the purchaser of the furniture; and a man in the employ of the latter had visited the place for the purpose of taking an inventory. It would seem quite obvious that this man, or the defendant, or some one of the persons attending the auction sale, -- and there were several, -- must have inadvertently turned the faucet, and so left it. The defendant was responsible for the proper use and proper care of the water and water-fixtures. Liability attached to him on proof that negligence had occurred and damages had ensued. Moore v. Goedel, 34 N.Y....
To continue reading
Request your trial