Court Opinion

ID: 9884250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:49:37.282681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:37.019926
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Klingbiel, dissenting: I cannot accept the reasoning or conclusion of the majority. It cannot be doubted, as the majority opinion emphasizes, that the parties contemplated the contingency of damage or destruction by fire. But the question here concerns not the physical means whereby the premises were damaged but the agency whereby the means were brought into operation. The subject of dispute is whether the fires contemplated are merely accidental ones, or whether they include as well fires caused by the fault of the lessee. The validity of exculpatory clauses is likewise beyond the scope of the present inquiry. As the majority opinion points out, this question has been settled. The issue is solely one of construction. The language relied upon by the majority is found in clause 2 of the lease which provides that upon termination the lessee will turn over the premises to the lessor “in good condition and repair (loss by fire and ordinary wear excepted).” Does that clause mean that the lessee is to be relieved from liability for fire damage caused by its own negligence? We ought not to so hold unless the lease definitely and certainly provides therefor. Since injury by negligence commonly results in liability, relief from such consequence should be clearly agreed upon between the parties, and ambiguity should not leave in doubt the question of intention. “Whether an exception of liability for injury by fire includes a fire caused by the tenant’s negligence depends on the intention of the parties, but, unless the exception clearly contemplates damage caused by the tenant’s negligence, it will not be construed to except liability for such injury.” (51 C.J.S. 1162, Landlord and Tenant, sec. 414.) Courts should not, because a more equitable result may seemingly be reached thereby, construe into a contract exculpatory provisions that do not specifically appear therein. I cannot agree that a covenant to surrender premises in good condition “loss by fire and ordinary wear excepted” may be reasonably construed to relate to the lessee’s tort liability. It concerns rather the lessee’s contractual liability to make repairs or rebuild in case of destruction by fire. The reason for inserting these common exceptions in surrender clauses of leases is apparently to relieve a tenant, who has agreed to keep the premises in repair, from a contractual liability to repair or rebuild structures damaged or destroyed by accidental fire. Appearing as they do in paragraphs relating to the upkeep and return of the property, such exceptions are not designed to relieve the lessee from tort liability. Had the parties intended to excuse the lessee from negligence in causing a fire or any other type of damage they would doubtless have said so in express terms. It is to be expected that a lessor would agree to negative any contractual duty on the part of the lessee to restore premises damaged by accidental fires. But it is not natural that a lessor would agree to release the lessee from liability for damage caused by its own negligence. Such terms would hardly be looked for in a contract between business men. The general rule is in accord with this common understanding. Thus, in 32 Am. Jur. 669, Landlord and Tenant, section 783, it is stated: “A tenant is, however, liable for injury to his landlord from the destruction by fire of a building on the demised premises caused proximately by the tenant’s negligence, even though the lease contains a provision that at the end of the term he shall yield possession ‘subject to loss by fire.’ ” It seems clear to me that the contingency contemplated by the parties in the case at bar was one of loss from accidental fires only. This is evident from the exception in paragraph 8 of the lease, which refers to “injury by fire, or other causes beyond Lessee’s control.” (Emphasis supplied.) Use of the word “other” indicates that the “fire” contemplated by the lease was fire beyond lessee’s control, or fire not caused by its negligence or other fault. The majority opinion says that since the lessee would not be liable for accidental fires even in the absence of provisions to that effect, the inclusion of the clause evidences an intention to enlarge the scope of its exculpation so as to include negligent fires. But in my opinion a proper construction of the clause leads to an exactly opposite conclusion. The clause refers to loss by ordinary wear as well as to loss by fire. The lessee would not be liable for loss by “ordinary wear” even in the absence of the clause, and unless those words mean something more, the clause in this respect merely restates the common-law consequences. Yet it could hardly be maintained that “ordinary wear” was meant to include negligent damages to the premises. If the clause does no more than restate the lessee’s common-law obligation as to loss by ordinary wear, such must be likewise the limit of its effect as to loss by fire. The two are treated exactly alike. If, as the majority opinion declares, the word “fire” is meant to include all fires regardless of their origin the lessee would seem to be exonerated from liability even for those caused with malice or intent to destroy. Certainly the word was not intended to have such an unqualified meaning. The argument that the cost of insurance enters into the amount of rent has no more validity here than the converse argument that reduced risks result in lower insurance costs and hence in lower rentals. The former type of argument is frequently used in proposing legislation for liability without fault, but it is hardly appropriate in determining rights and liabilities based upon consent, intention, or tortious conduct. Carried to its logical conclusion it would substantially refashion the law of torts in most commercial affairs. The lease in the case at bar does not refer to injury through negligence of the lessee, and there is no specific exemption of liability for the consequences of its negligence. Contracts exempting liability for negligence are strictly construed against the party relying on them, and clear and explicit language is required to absolve a person from such liability. There is no basis for such a construction in the present case. The Appellate Court, in my opinion, rightly affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and its judgment should be affirmed. Mr. Justice Maxwell concurs in the foregoing dissent.