Case Name: Caroline Mouliet v. Emma M. Anderson
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1907-06-01
Citations: 13 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 404
Docket Number: 
Parties: Caroline Mouliet v. Emma M. Anderson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 13
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
AGREEMENT OF LANDLORD WITH TENANT AS TO REPAIRS.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
Caroline Mouliet v. Emma M. Anderson.
Decided, June 1, 1907.
Landlord and Tenant — Agreement to Repair Premises Does Not Inure for the Benefit of a Servant of the Lessee — Negligence—Proximate Cause.
The agreement of a property owner with his lessee to repair the premises occupied, does not inure for the benefit of others toward whom the owner sustained no relations growing out of the agreement.
C. B. Smith and J. B. Schroeder, for plaintiff in error.
Worthington & Strong, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The action below was to charge defendant as owner of leased premises for injuries received by a servant employed in the family of the lessee in manipulating a cellar door in a sidewalk adjacent to the leased building, upon the theory that the hinges of the cellar door being defective when the lease was made and the owner having promised to repair, the facts created an obligation toward plaintiff.
The court below directed a verdict for the defendant. That an obligation toward the party injured, and that its violation was the proximate cause of the injury must be shown, is well settled. (Railway v. Cox, Admr., 66 O. S., 376.)
But this the testimony failed to show. The premises were leased entire to one Griesling, and were under his sole control. He may have been liable to her as master in not furnishing her a safe place to work, but an owner's contract to repair, made with a lessee, does not innure to the benefit of others toward whom the owner sustained no relations growing out of the contract. (Burdick v. Cheadle, 26 O. S., 393; Langebaugh v. Anderson, 68 O. S., 130, at 150.)
We find no error in the judgment and proceedings below.
Judgment affirmed.