Court Opinion

ID: 9774958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:39:19.230743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:18.272178
License: Public Domain

WESTHUES,
J. (dissenting) I cannot concur in the result reached in the opinion prepared by Judge Hyde in this case. In the conclusion, it is stated, “We limit our decision to holding, where it is not alleged that the possessor of land was informed that fireman intended to enter and use the porch of his building with their fire fighting equipment before they went on it, he cannot be held liable for failure to warn them to leave it after he knew of their presence there.” (Emphasis supplied)
*313To say that a property owner would be liable if be failed to warn firemen if be bad opportunity to do so before tbe firemen went onto a porcb tbat be knew was likely to fall, and not be liable for failure to warn after tbe firemen bad entered upon tbe porcb, is to draw a distinction where no difference exists. In other words, tbe opinion of Judge Hyde bolds that a property owner may stand idly by while firemen who are on a defective porcb fall to their death or great injury and not be liable even though a warning would have saved tbe firemen; but, if tbe owner has notice of tbe firemen’s preparing to go onto the defective porcb and fails to warn, then be will be liable. In my bumble opinion, tbe petition in this case states a cause of action. Tbe question of fact, tbat is, whether Barney Cinnamon had knowledge of tbe weakness of tbe porcb and whether after tbe firemen entered upon the porcb, Cinnamon bad time to warn, should be determined by a jury.
I respectfully dissent.