Court Opinion

ID: 9811686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:27:20.771078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:07.854864
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.
The defendants D. E. and R. C. Sappenfield, tenants, did not demur to the complaint, the landlord M. B. Sherrin did. The question for our decision is: Did the court below properly overrule the demurrer of M. B. Sherrin,' who demurred to the complaint of plaintiff on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action against him? We think so.
The facts succinctly alleged in the complaint are as follows: The defendant M. B. Sherrin, a landlord, owned a filling station located in a thickly settled residential section of Cabarrus County, where hundreds of children lived and played, which he leased to his codefendants Sappen-*539field. One of tbe Sappenfields owned a vacant lot adjacent to the property of the defendant Sherrin. Subsequent to the lease, and upon discovery that the septic tank built with the original plant was inadequate, all of the defendants met on the premises and agreed to enlarge the plant by digging a large pit on the land owned by Sappenfield and to connect with the original plant. The defendant Sherrin and both his codefend-ants Sappenfield shared equally the costs of the extension and excavation of the pit, and upon completion left the same uncovered, unprotected and concealed by weeds, without warning, and allowed to fill with water, sewage and other waste liquids. A few days before 16 February, 1939, while this condition existed, plaintiff’s intestate, together with his parents, moved into a vacant house immediately adjacent to the lot upon which the unenclosed pit existed, and on said 16 February, 1939, while at play, the child, plaintiff’s intestate, fell into the pit and was drowned. No member of the family of plaintiff’s intestate had any knowledge or warning beforehand of the existence of the open pit.
In Knight v. Foster, 163 N. C., 329 (332), the following is stated: “Where dilapidated premises are leased in a ruinous condition, known to the landlord, and such condition causes the use of public highways and thoroughfares in populous cities to become unsafe and insecure, and the landlord knows of the conditions and suffers them to continue, both the landlord and tenant are tort-feasors, and may be sued jointly or severally. Ahern v. Steele, 115 N. Y., 202, is an instructive case in which the authorities as to the liability of landlord and tenant to third parties are collected and differentiated. It is there held, citing Wood’s Landlord and Tenant, 230, ‘If a nuisance existed upon the premises at the time of the demise, the landlord as well as the tenant is liable for the damages resulting therefrom.’ ” Annotated 50 L. R. A., New Series, 286.
In Boyd v. R. R., 207 N. C., 390, the following is cited with approval: “A judgment of nonsuit was reversed in Starling v. Cotton Mills, 168 N. C., 229, 84 S. E., 388. In that case the plaintiff’s intestate, a boy six years of age, fell into a reservoir on the defendant’s premises, and was drowned. The defendant had caused a fence to be constructed around the reservoir, but had failed to keep the fence in repair. Plaintiff’s intestate crawled through a hole in the fence and fell into the reservoir. There was evidence .tending to show that plaintiff’s intestate and other children had been accustomed to play about the reservoir, and that the defendant knew of this custom, and because of this custom had caused the fence to be erected for the protection of the children. In the opinion in that case it is said: ‘It does not admit of debate that the fact that such a dangerous place was unguarded by a secure fence, where children of that age were allowed to play, was culpable negligence on the part of the officers of the defendant. The very fact that a fence has been put *540up of itself shows that these authorities were aware of the danger. To permit it to become dilapidated was negligence.’ ” Brannon v. Sprinkle, 207 N. C., 398.
In Wilson v. Dowtin, 215 N. C., 547 (550), is the following: “The general and basic rule is that when third parties are injured as the result of any defective condition in leased premises he may have recourse against the lessee, but not against the lessor. Williams v. Strauss, 210 N. C., 200, 158 S. E., 252; Combs v. Paul, 200 N. C., 382, 157 S. E., 12. The liability may, however, be extended to the landlord or owner — (a) When he contracts to repair; (b) where he knowingly demises the premises in a ruinous condition or in a state of nuisance; (c) where he authorizes a wrong. 1 Jaggard Torts, 223; 5 Dillon Mun. Corp. (5th Ed.), 3028; 36 C. J., 208; Knight v. Foster, 163 N. C., 329.”
In Thompson on Real Property (4th Ed.), (1940), part sec. 1555, p. 23, we find (citing the Wilson case, supra) : “So, as a general rule, a third person who is injured as a result of the defective leased premises may have recourse against the tenant but not against the landlord, but a landlord who contracts to repair, or knowingly demises the premises in a ruinous condition, he may be held liable to such third person. . . . (p. 26) The landlord is liable, however, where he has leased the premises with a nuisance upon them. . . . (sec. 1581, p. 71) A person injured on leased premises may bring a joint action against the landlord and tenant for injuries alleged to have resulted from their joint negligence. (p. 72) ‘It is settled law that where the owner lets premises which are in a condition which is unsafe for the avowed purpose for which they are let, or with a nuisance upon them when let, and receives rent therefor, he is liable whether in or out of possession, for the injuries which result from their state of insecurity to persons lawfully upon them; for by the letting for profit he authorized a continuance of the condition they were in when he let them, and is, therefore, guilty of misfeasance.’ ” Gaither v. Generator Co., 121 N. C., 384.
N. C. Code, 1939 (Michie), sec. 4426 (c), is as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation, after discontinuing the use of any well, to leave said well open and exposed; said well, after the use of same has been discontinued, shall be carefully and securely filled: Provided, that this shall not apply to wells on farms that are protected by curbing or board walls. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined or imprisoned, in the discretion of the court.” This section is said to be a sensible regulation in 1 N. C. Law Rev., p. 300.
In the present action it is specifically alleged that “They and each of them dug, constructed and maintained the hole or pit hereinbefore described and alleged on the lot belonging to the defendant Sappenfield, *541and failed to enclose tbe same with any fence, barricade, or protection whatsoever.”
For tbe reasons given, tbe judgment of tbe court below overruling tbe demurrer of M. B. Sherrin is
Affirmed.