Case ID: mich-np-r_1/html/lxxix-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Christiahoy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fisher et. al., vs. Thirkell.
    The owner of premises is not liable for accidents occasioned Jon account of neglect to keep euch premises in iepair,^wbile the same are under the control of a lessee.
    A person to be liable for an accident occasioned on account of negleot to keep certain premises in repair, must have such an interest in the premises as to entitle him to control the same.
    There is no rule er authority requiring a severance of plaintiffs in error in the assignments of error.
    Error to Wayne Circuit.
   Opinion by

Christiahoy, J.

This was an action on the case brought by defendant in error to recover damages received by her falling into a scuttle or bole in the sidewalk on Woodward Avenue, Detroit, in front of a store in the “ Fisher Block,” of which said Fishers were owners, and which they had rented some years béfore. The thimble to the scuttle had been broken, so that in stepping upon the side of the cover it would tip over, and in this way the plaintiff received the injury, about dusk on the evening of December 28,- 1868. The premises were not in the occupation of the Fishers, and never had been occupied by them, but by tenants under them. Some time previous to the accident the store had been leased to a Mr. and Mrs. Hill, and was occupied by them as a drug store up to about the time of, if not after the accident. The defendant, Griffith, on the 18th of December entered into a verbal negotiation for the purchase of the stock of goods,'and had, prior to the accident, delivered the securities for the purchase; but it does not appear that Griffith had any possession or control of the store otherwise than by the mere permission of the Hills. About 6 o’clock, December 28th, and after the accident, Griffith assumed possession of the store. There was testimony as to certain statements of Griffith as to his having legal possession of the store at the time of the accident.

Held, 1. That the statement of Griffith as to his being in possession-was accompanied with such • qualifications as clearly show that it was in law neither an actual nor a legal possession, and that he was mistaken in his legal opinion of what constituted possession.

¡Ü§[ Held, 2. That no kind of possession by Griffith which did not give him the control of the premises as between him and the Hills, could have rendered him responsible for this accident, as no other could impose upon him instead of them the duty of keeping the scuttle in repair, and there is no testimony to show that he had any such possession.

Held, 3. That the original erection having been legal and in a proper and safe condition when the Fishers leased the premises to the Hills, and the injury being received in consequence of the scuttle getting out of repair during the leasing, the Fishers were not liable as owners or otherwise for having failed to keep it in safe condition and repair.

Held, 4. That the objection to the assignment' of errors because it appears to be joint in behalf of both plaintiffs in error ^ while several of the assignments are upon errors which could only affect Griffith and others, are upon grounds which could only affect the Fishers, is not well taken. There is no rule or authority requiring a severance of plaintiffs in error in the assignments of error. They were sued jointly and a joint - judgment recovered. The assignment should be considered joint or several, according to the nature of the error assigned, and as affecting the respective, plaintiffs in error.

Judgment below reversed with oosts, and new trial ordered.