LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Robert B. McKee vs. Bobert McCardell et al.
Citation: 21 R.I. 363
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1899-06-28
Docket Number: 
Pages: 363–364
Volume: 21
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Robert B. McKee vs. Bobert McCardell et al.

Robert B. McKee vs. Bobert McCardell et al.
PROVIDENCE—
JUNE 28, 1899.
Present : Matteson, C. J., Stiness and Tillinghast, JJ.
(1) Pleading and Practice. Negligence. Landlord and Tenant.
In an action against the owner and the occupant of a building to recover damages for injuries received by falling into an unguarded elevator-well, it is sufficient if the declaration aver an invitation to the plaintiff by the defendants to enter the building; the duty of the defendants to take and use all proper means and precautions, in the use of the elevator on the premises, to prevent persons lawfully there by invitation of the defendants from falling into the elevator-well; and a neglect of that duty.
Trespass on the Case for negligence. The action was brought against the defendant McCardell, the Owner of a building, and the defendant Pearlstone, the tenant of a store in said building, and averred that said owner erected for the use of the occupants of said store a certain elevator and elevator-well from the cellar of the building to the floor of the store, for the purpose of lifting and carrying goods into the store; that the elevator-well was without guards around it and was dangerous to persons walking in the cellar-way; that the plaintiff entered the store, at the invitation of the defendants, to fix the water-pipes, and walked into the elevator well and was injured; and that it was the duty of the defendants to use all due reasonable and proper means, in the use of the elevator, to prevent persons from falling into the well, by providing suitable guards or barriers around the same.
The defendant McCardell demurred on the grounds that the declaration did not sét out any duty on his part to the plaintiff ; that the declaration alleged that the elevator-well was erected by him for the use of the occupants of the store as a freight elevator and not for any other purpose ; that the declaration did not show that the plaintiff was necessarily or lawfully in the place where the well was situated, for the purpose of fixing the water-pipes; or that it was necessary for the plaintiff to use the elevator or well while upon the premises. Heard on demurrer. Demurrer overruled.
Stephen J. Casey and Dennis J. Holland, for plaintiff. J. W. Hogan and E. C. Pierce, for defendants.

Per Curiam.
The declaration alleges an invitation to the plaintiff by the defendants to enter the building ; the duty of the defendants to take and use all proper means and precautions in the use of the elevator on the premises, to prevent persons lawfully there by invitation of the defendants from falling into the elevator-well; and a neglect of that duty. Our opinion is that it is sufficient. Beehler v. Daniels, Cornell & Co., 19 R. I. 49, 51 ; Henson v. Beckwith, 20 R. I. 165.