, 1892-03-11
SUIT FOR DAMAGES.
JUDGMENT REVERSED in A PIERCE
COUNTY CASE.

a Question or Liability Between
the Landlord a2sd Tenant--Tlae
Case Of Peter Johnson ". the
Tacoma Cedar Lumber GO.
Continued from Thursday.;
This instruction the court refused to give
to the jury the refusal was duly excepted
to- and is assigned as error here, and must
be considered. This instruction we think
fairly stated the Law of the case. 1t was
one of the material issues involved The
complaint is based on the relationship of
master and servant. The allegations Of the
complaint, that the defendant was the
operator of the mill ait the time of the ae-
eident, and that it hired and employed the
plaintiff We're not meaningless allegations,
but they were material and essentially
necessary to sustain a judgment id this
kind of an action. JIG the complaint had
alleged that the defendant was the owner
Of this mill and that at the time the injury
was inflicted it was operated and controlled
by Barnes under "a lease, and that plaintiff
was employed by Barnes, and was working
for Barnes, it would not in our Judgment
have stated cause of action against the
defendant. The fact that these allegations
are in the answer, instead of the complaint.
will not change their effect on the case If
they are sustained by the proof.
into a discussion of the relative liabilities
of landlords and tenants so far as the rights
of third parties are concerned. Atthe COM
mon law the 0ccupier and not the landlord
was bound to keep the premises in repair
and was prinla facie liable to third persons
for damages arising from any defect There
are some cases which hold that where there
is an express agreement between the land
lord and the tenant, that the landlord
shall keep his premises In repair, 7 so that
In case OF recovery against the tenant the
latter would have his remedy over against
the landlord, to avoid circuity of action
the party injured by the defect may have
his action ii the first instance against the
landlord. For this class of cases see j.
Thompson on Damages, p. 317 and notes.
But this class 0fcases lis not in point here
Ut is not alleged or c0ntended that. there
was any agreement of the landlord to keep
the premises or the machinery il repair,
nor chat there was any hidden defect in
the machinery, not made known
by the landlord, which would bring
it within the rule laid down ia that class of
cases; nor that the public had any right to
go on these premises; or even that the ma
chinerY was out OF order or repair at the
time the lease was executed. In this case,
according to the allegations in the answer
the plaintiff was there at the instance and
and request of the lessee, and, says Sher-
1.-THE liability of the landIoTd l99Tqoi5o1.
EXISTS onIv III favor f 5ersons ubo sfsS,5 "a
sfrefIv Tnon Heir ri5ts as stra,s,ga
Those who claim Tno5 f er1I9ld fIef
fhev were invited ifo ! danesaro11 ,,Iaee
aI1st seek tbair ren,aGI1T 'lt1se ~
narson wbo invited tben95 4f H. Ia, gile 9
fha ol1asts ~ tTa far,ant Ea ara ~ IT
IandioTd Il tbe nersa IRON, eSlie 1bo,i 49, .l9
must seel redress fo iIiF1rios ea3lso5 Ky y,
anV defects II fe nranaisas ], rHisis
1aenf IF f1 law ~ fsarnaa a3d
II i1of6 i 115ang ca
fio11 Il raisa And es3 ~ oal1 q
stata fhe General consensus II
opinion. If wouId h as 1ie s
H flinst "a hold te aVnaI IF a.
tlring estabIisbepfs pesn6sIa far
an1aees tbat naih ocenr ~ ~ H. T.
maci1nerv M beinoe e i5 - "
bv lis lessee when he H. tbe 176r aTe,.a
tions and conditions If tha ea
could have ~ si77seTTsos ozra, RI 719
resnonsi ibiIitu u+a1lId affsab Il
short lease If vo3d affsab d1, llliil 9
LONG lease and M nr7IaT9f
Afford fo I'M sucb ris5s tba alesl
snIt would be ia Genrva Ike d1t1, IL
ria7t fa lease III I3relaisas 7 = sile
IT il argued by fbe '-rfs1y1 rasnondant fbat +bis
right is liable to abuse. and fhat sbare
pose ayoiding resnonsibilffv + casas ssl1 II