The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-06-29
OWNER NOT LIABLE.
Appellate Court Decision In Case
Against Lydia d. Beckwllh.
Was Sued on Acc unit OF Death cf Young
Henson Who Fell Gown Elevator Well.

Mr.. Justice Stiness today handed down
the decision OF the Appellate Court IN
the case of Martin Henson, administrator,
VS.. Lydia ID. Bcckwith. Tho decision is
against the plaintiff. tho defendants de-
murrers 10 the declaration being sustained
and the plaintiffs demurrer To the defend
ants plea overruled. Marin Henson sued
to recover $40 600 for the death OF his son.
who fell down an elevator we'll.
Slhe plaintiff in his declaration aiegfs
that the defendant. owner OF building
known as the Owen building, on Dyer
street. In the city OF Providence, on Aprll
3d, 1895, and for "A long time PRIOR thereto
knew of dangerous Goiect In the con-
struction OF the elevator well therein ~
leaving a large opening between the ole
yatOr and the outer wall that whllo the
plaintiffs intestate. Martin Henson, Jr.,
was delivering goods on said April so, 10
n tenant in the building, by his invitation
and which in the exercise OF duo care.
said intestato fell through the opohihS a4e
was killed.
Judge Stiffness says Defendant demurred
to the declaration for lack OF material
averments; but rs these could DE supplieu
by amendment. and as the real question Oh
tho case arises in "a broader way upon the
defendants plea TO which the plaintin
demurs we will consider the whole case
W
The plea sets up the fact that excepting
"A small store tho whole building together
with the elevator, was under lease from
Jan. !, 1895. 90 Dec. 81, lS99 with
covenant by the lessee to Keep the interior
in repair and that tho defendant had no
control over the elevator nor the right 20
make alterations. The case as thus stated
raises the question of the landlords iia-
bility to n stranger for the defective con-
dition of promises under lease.
In Joyce VS.. Martin. 10 X. i. Dos, this
court recognized three classes OF cases OF
this sort: First, where the owner leases
premises which are nuisance, or must,
In the nature of things became so by their
use then whether in or not OF possession,
he is liable for injuries resulting from
| such nuisance. Second, whore premises are
| let for rent or profit To be used tor pur-
poses for which they are not lit or saie
| and all this was known. or ought TO
have been known to the lesser, he Is also
| liable for injuries resulting from the same.
| Third. where property at the time of n
| demise is not a nuisance, ana an injury
| happens by some act OF the tenant or
/ while he has entire possession and con-
| troll of the premises, the owner Is not
| liable.
| These three rules seem to us compre-
| hensive aud correct Our inquiry there
| fore, is To which class the case at bar be-
| longs. The first class of cases includes
| those where an owner has by an express
| or implied invitation brought persons to
| danger and injury, under conditions
| which amount TO nuisance. vi the
| second class Carson VS.. Goodey, 20. Pa.
! St, ILL.,, is an example the building
! having been bought Tor the purposes iof
! which IL was let.
| We think ID is clear that the case at
| bar does not fall within the first OF these
| classes. The defect complained OF was
not in or near public way not in q
| part OF the premises held out by the
| owner for the entry OF strangers so rs &c
| amount TO an invitation 10 place which
is nuisance. The general right tt
erect building is recognized and the
| court hold that even If there be danger
Gus places In the building the owner vio
lates no right of other people in so doing.
! III he invites others into such building
he is, to some extent responsible fo'
| their safety; but the building Is not or
| that account nuisance.
Nor does the court think the case comes
! within the second class OF cases rs it doe;
not appear that the building was unfit fol
| the purposes for which it was let, ant
| tho defect complained of was open ant
obvious 1t could easily have been guardet
by n barrier Being freight elevator. 4
was of itself, the court holds, warning
that it was not intended for the safet!
of passengers and equally SO was 1t
warning to those at work upon II. Ib'
| injury was not caused by any defect II
| the elevator itself. Such elevators ar
| now in common use and it is "a matter o
common knowledge that they are more o
| less unprotected at the sides The decla
ration does not state whether the plain
tiff's intestate was an employe Of th
| lessee or stranger, but II seems TO impl,
the latter in stating that he entered upoi
the invitation OF a tenant In said build
ing III he was an employe the rule o
Kelley W.. Silver Spring, IL X l. liz
that ono who works exposed TO manifes
| danger cannot look TO his employer II n
is injured. would apply, With stronge
! re son to exonerate the lessor of the EN-
| ployer If he was u stranger on tn
premises az the invitation Of the tenant
tho case falls within the third class abovI
described. and the owner Is not liable
The facts In this case. 1t Is held, do no
amount to an invitation by the landlord
! 1t would be startling proposition th
| court further states, that every owner VIII
| has leased property To others, is liable 70
| its absolute security, at the time OF lettin
| TO every person whom tenant may In
| vite TO the premises whom such owne
! can neither have knowledge OF such entr
| nor the chance of warning or protection
| we do not think that the law goes TO thi
| extent, yet such n proposition would
necessary to sustain the present case
| If "a tenant invites n stranger to use
freight elevator the tenant. IL is the rul
ing Of the court, is the party bound {
| give warning and look out Tor the safet,
| OF his guest. Herbert Almy was attorne
! for the defendant.
Young Henson met his death on Apr
30, 1895, and was II years Of age. Tb
| ncciuent occurred lust after he had cas-