The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-05-07

defendant: her duty that should damage
goods by defective condition
The that the defendant upon being
the closet plumbers examine it admission that she
obliged keep repair Though tenants were allow
ed the closet also the staircase liability
rested upon the defendant reasonable keep
resulting to the plaintiff or his property.
Shear q Red Neg. Sections 72a724 and cited in
the
Loouey I. Mclean, Mass. 80.
Toolc Beckett, 81 Me- $40.
Watkins Goodai, Mass. 533
Donohue Kendall, 80 n Y. Super. CT. $50, Am &
Eng. Encv. p 6S6
Jones Freidc,6ug Ga 800, u Am. 4 Eng. Ency.
p. 687.
Where it is held that the landlord liable his for
damages to the atters goods from careless use of bathroom
and water which appurenant part the premises
demed and which under the control of the landlord In
the present case the defendant denies that she exercised
supervision the premises but the evidence shows
that she did and had to the for the purpose of
pair
appears the evidence that the leaking had been
going little time and the defendant had been notified
of it by the plaintiff and had plumbers examine and
report her the of the closet early May 22nd BY
them she informed that the closet needed immediate aen
and that injury liable any time In spite
of this knowledge She made repairs till after the damage
had occurred If the rested here the defendant would be
clearly liable damage caused and if this could be
decided by sentiment such might be the Judgment OF this court
evidence dscoes the highest degree of negligence and
anton carelessness part of the defendants but the
defendant claims further that the duty cast upon her to
repair the closet the plaintiff guilty of contbutoy neg
gence which bars his right to recovery.
he evidence shows that months prior May 31st
another overflow occurred which night patroman
turned off the of cock situated in the basement
leased to plaintiff Mr. Weldon, the plntt confidential
clerk and manager of this Office present the time and had
knowledge of the of this cock and of the fact that the
water could thus be turned off, The leaking during the lew days
before May 31st had been considerable and the plaintiff and Mr.
Weldon had been obliged put cspdor the floor OF their
premises catch the rpped the floor above
They knowledge of the dangerous condition of the
neglected off the by of this
cock which was on their premises and within their control
dmittp of
cock but both he and the plaintiff claimed that their duty
notify the defendant and off the They
until the overflow occurred and this when they had collect
the water flowing from by placing cuspdor below In
both these particulars the plaintiff and his employees
guilty of negligence with contributed the damage which
suited from the overflow The plaintiff equally with the defend
bound diligence guard against injury The
want omission either side of such caution attention
discretion would constitute negligence Even where the
defendant guilty of negligence if appears that the plaintiff
guilty of conrbuory negligence he cannot
Shear q Red on Neg. Section 61
Priest Nichols, 116 Mass 401,
Taylor BdiEey "A I'll. 178,
Moore ct al Goedez 81 N. Y $685. Gin many respects
similar to the at barr
"n the latter it is held the plaintiffs had no right of
their negligence contributed the loss and that
did apparent from the mcontradicted evidence The
damage from overflow of They had
mann cock intended OF shutting off the water from
the buildings they neglected those means 1t is be
regretted that the plaintiff rested satisfied with merely notify
ing defendant of the necessity of repairs The case is not
without difficulty and the regrets that
assistance of counsel the points law involved upon
facts found and view of the law taken by the court Judgment
be rendered for the defendant Let Judgment be entered
accordingly"
We of opinion findings of fact are substantially
and that the rulings of law also they
hold the defendant primarily liable for the injury But
find in the last part of the decision regards the alleged
conrbuory negligence of the plaintiff Concedng that the
leak might have been stopped by the plaintiff by turning the
stop sock the and thus shutting off the from
the entire building was this act one that person OF ordinary
and caution should have exercised under the circumstances
There Is evidence that the leak from the closet had