New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-02

substantial, and gave Miss Kendall IN invita-
ton to attend the concert So far as they were
concerned the injury was a pure accident
Such case goes far to show that managers
of a Fair, who hire building generally believed
to be safe and substantial, are not under any
pecuniary responsibility to visitors who may DC
hurt by its unexpected fall This is common
sense as well as established law. The Far
managers are only responsible that the arrange
ments they make are judiciOus and prudent. In
all cases of this class the effort Of the courts
is to ascertain the persons actually at fault for
the casualty, and to hold them liable. owners
of building are not chargeable merely because
they own it, nor are they held to make good
any injury it causes on the mere ground that
they make profit from its use. The question
who is in fault usually rests between the
owner, the architect and the tenant II the
building is leased In this city, at least, there
is a general rule that if a landowner desiring
to build, employs q competent, skllful archl-
feet. and does not restrict him in framing
proper plan and securing good materials, the
owner has discharged his whole duty; and the
responsibility for fall, il attributable to orig
inal weakness, is upon the architect III decay
or deterioration in the foundations OF struc-
ture originally sound is the cause ct the accl-
dent, then the owner or the tenant, whichever
was in duty bound to make inspection anu
proper repairs, will be the responsible person,
provided the defect could have been ascer-
taned A fall resulting from nscrutabe decay
or change, such as no inspection would have
disclosed, may pass, in law, for pure accident.
The latest published volume OF the Court Oh
Appeals Reports contains a case which llluml-
mates this subject, although it was the plalntlH
and not the building that fell Some club OF
society hired the hall for public dance. ms
hall was i'm the third story OF a large building,
The rest of which was occupied by the owner Tor
a hotel. The entertainment was advertised anu
tickets were sold to the general public. AT the
close of the evening one of the visitors, leaving
the ball, came down tho upper flight OF stairs to
the second floor ard should, but for a mis-
take, have gone down the lower flight, ana out
at the front door. There was, however, at the
foot of the upper fight door precisely like
the front door, which opened ont upon mere
awning, and was unfastened This arrange
mcnt was inrxcusabIy careless. The visitor, by
a natural mistake, opened the unfastencd sec
ond-noor door, stcppcdiOut upon the awning and
thence fell from the height of the second ho0r
70 the street below. In the suit which he
brought for damages the landlord argued that
he was under no obligation toward general WIS.,
itors. for the safety of the premises, because
there WAS no agreement between him and
them. lie had let the hail. he said, to the So
c,eiv. and was only bound to compensate them
if they lost anything by defects. But he adj
milted that he knew that it was hired for
public entertainment, and the court said that
if this were so he was responsible for the safe
and sound character of the building to all the
tickct-buycrs. Whoever lets hall for public
purposes, represents to the public that the hall
is n safe one for them to visit and is bound to
exercise all reasonable care that arrange
ments for the entrance and departure of Wis
itors shall be safe In law, the ticket-buyers
come upon this invitation.