Case Name: Moroder, Appellant, vs. Fox, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1914-02-03
Citations: 155 Wis. 503
Docket Number: 
Parties: Moroder, Appellant, vs. Fox, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 503–517

Head Matter:
Moroder, Appellant, vs. Fox, Respondent.
October 31, 1913
February 3, 1914.
Landlord and tenant: .Lease construed: Negligence: Bursting of water pipes: Liability of lessor.
1. Plaintiff rented from defendant the first floor and part of the basement of a three-story building under a lease which, in the printed part thereof, required him “to take and use all necessary precautions to prevent damages to any of the water pipes and. water works upon said premises, or to any part of said demised premises, by frost or otherwise, and to pay all damages done to said premises by reason of bursting of water pipes, and to turn and let the water out of the pipes in said premises whenever it shall be necessary to do so, to prevent it from freezing or injuring said pipes and property.” When the lease was made the second and third floors of the building were occupied as flats by other tenants, each of whom did his own heating. There was but one tprn-off for the water, which was located in the basement, accessible to both plaintiff and defendant. Turning off the water there cut off the supply from all the tenants. Held, that the quoted provision was intended to make the lessee responsible only for the pipes in the portion of the premises leased by him; that the words “said premises” refer to the premises leased and not to the whole building in which they were situated.
2. The flat on the second floor afterwards became vacant and so remained for some time, in the possession of the defendant, who knew that it was not heated and that the water pipes running through it were unprotected. Held, that he was negligent in permitting the premises so to remain during the winter time, and became liable to plaintiff for damage to the goods of the latter on the first floor proximately caused by the freezing of the water and bursting of the pipes on the second floor.
Timlin and Keewin, JJ., dissent.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Oscab M. Ebitz, Circuit Judge.
Reversed.
Action to recover damages sustained by reason of the bursting of water pipes above plaintiff’s premises resulting-in damage to goods contained therein. On the 18th day of June, 1911, the plaintiff leased from the defendant for a period of two years from May 1, 1911, the first floor and part of the basement of a three-story building situated in the city of Milwaukee. The printed portion of the lease contained this agreement on the part of the lessee:
“To take and use all necessary precautions to prevent damages to any of the water pipes and water works upon said premises, or to any part of said demised premises, by frost' or otherwise, and to pay all damages done to said premises by reason of bursting of water pipes, and to turn and let tbe water out of the pipes in said premises whenever it shall be necessary to do so, to prevent it' from freezing or injuring said pipes and property.”
Plaintiff occupied the first floor as a store and workshop and directly above it were two flats, one in the second and one in the third story, which at the time the lease was executed were occupied by other tenants of the defendant. At the time the damages were sustained only the third floor of said building was occupied as a flat. There was but one water meter and one set of water pipes for the use of the first floor and the two flats above, and the turn-off was located in the basement, so that' if the water had been turned off there,. the tenants on the other floors would have had their water supply shut off. In September the flat on the second floor was vacated, and remained so until the 5th day of January, 1912, when, owing to severe cold, the pipes in the second flat burst, large quantities of water escaped through the floor and ceiling of the premises occupied by the plaintiff and directly upon his stock of goods, a greater portion of which was water-soaked and damaged. At the time the pipes burst there was no heat in the second floor and the pipes were not protected from frost in any way.
The case was first tried in the civil court, and the judge thereof held the defendant liable and assessed plaintiff’s damages in the sum of $250, and entered judgment accordingly. An appeal was taken to the circuit court', which resulted in a reversal of the judgment on the ground that plaintiff, by the provision of the lease quoted, had agreed to become responsible for any damage done by the freezing or bursting of the water pipes in question. Erom a judgment entered accordingly the plaintiff appealed.
For the appellant' the cause was submitted on the brief of Alexander ■& Burke.
Eor the respondent there was a brief by Houghton, Neelen & Houghton, and oral argument by Albert Houghton.

Opinion:
The following opinion was filed November 18, 1913:
ViNJE, J.
It appears that plaintiff rented the first story and part of the basement of a tliree-story building, and that at the time the lease was executed the second and third stories were used as flats. Ilis lease required him to "take and use all necessary precautions to prevent damages to any of the water pipes and water works upon said premises, or to any part' of said demised premises, by frost or otherwise, and to pay all damages done to said premises by reason of bursting of said water pipes, and to turn and let the water out of the pipes in said premises whenever it shall be necessary to do so, to prevent it from freezing or injuring said pipes and property." Do these provisions of the lease obligate the plaintiff to so care for the water.pipes that' they shall not burst in those portions of the buildiiig not leased or used by him? The provisions are in the printed form of the lease, and we think it quite clear that they were intended to make the tenant responsible only for the pipes in the portion of the premises leased by him; that the words éaid premises refer to the premises leased, and not to the whole building in which they are situated. In the instant case there was a flat in the second story, and one in the third story occupied by other tenants of the landlord. It could not have been the intention of the parties that .the plaintiff should become responsible for the water pipes in those two flats to which he had no access and over which he could exercise no control. True, there was but one shut-off for the store occupied by the plaintiff and the two flats, which was located in the basement and t'o which both the plaintiff and defendant had access. But plaintiff could not shut off the water for the second, or vacant, flat without at the same time shutting it off for the third flat, which was occupied. The only way to prevent the pipes from freezing in the second flat was to heat it, or sufficiently wrap the pipes, as found by the civil court. However, that is immaterial, sin.ce under tbe terms of the lease, as we construe it, be was chargeable with the condition of the water pipes only in the premises leased by him.
From the time the tenant of the flat on the second floor vacated the same in September up to and including the time the damage was done, the defendant was in possession of it, as was found by the civil court and as the fact was. Being in possession thereof, irrespective of the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, it became his duty to exercise ordinary care to so use the same as not to injure plaintiff in the enjoyment of his premises. Knowing that the premises were vacant and unheated and. that the water pipes running through the same to supply the flat on the third story with water were uncovered and unprotected from frost, it was negligence to allow them so to remain during the winter time. Eor such negligence he became liable to plaintiff who sustained damage as a proximate result thereof. The case of Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401, is very much in point. The facts and ruling thereon are thus stated by the court:
"The plaintiffs occupied as tenants the lower floor of a building belonging to the defendants. The defendants occupied the floor above. There was a pipe leading through the plaintiffs' premises which conveyed the waste water and material from the manufactory, sinks and water closet of the defendants to the sewer below. This pipe was alleged to be in charge of the defendants, and evidence was offered that they had so treated it, and had, from time to time, upon notice, made repairs upon it. But they negligently suffered it to be out of repair, whereby the water damaged the goods of the plaintiffs. It was a question of fact for the jury, whether the pipe was in charge of the defendants, and was out of repair through their negligence. The rule that a landlord is not bound to keep the premises of his tenant in repair, and therefore cannot be held responsible for negligence, if out of repair, has no application to the facts presented in this case."
It was held that plaintiff was entitled to recover. In Buckley v. Cunningham, 103 Ala. 449, 15 South. 826, the contrary was held under somewhat similar facts. In the following cases recoveries have been had for the negligent escape of water by a tenant or owner causing damage to another tenant: Warren v. Kauffman, 2 Phila. 259; Rosenfield v. Arrol, 44 Minn. 395, 46 N. W. 168; Killion v. Power, 51 Pa. St. 429; Curran v. Weiss, 6 Misc. 138, 26 N. Y. Supp. 8; Greco v. Bernheimer, 11 Misc. 592, 40 N. Y. Supp. 611; Simon-Reigel C. Co. v. Gordon-Burnham B. Co. 20 Misc. 598, 46 N. Y. Supp. 416; Miller v. Benoit, 29 App. Div. 252, 51 N. Y. Supp. 368, affirmed in 164 N. Y. 590, 58 N. E. 1090; Pike v. Brittan, 71 Cal. 159, 11 Pac. 890; Freidenburg & Co. v. Jones, 63 Ga. 612. See, also, valuable note in 15 L. R. A. N. s. 545 et seq., where most of these and other cases are collected. Eor additional cases, where it has been held that the landlord is liable to a tenant for the negligent use of part of the premises retained by him, see Railton v. Taylor, 20 R. I. 279, 38 Atl. 980; Hysore v. Quigley, 9 Houst. (Del.) 348, 32 Atl. 960; Defiance W. Co. v. Olinger, 54 Ohio St. 532, 44 N. E. 238; Glickauf v. Maurer, 15 Ill. 289; Jackson v. Eddy, 12 Mo. 209; Stapenhorst v. American Mfg. Co. 15 Abb. Pr. n. s. 355.
By the Court.- — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the civil court.