Loupe v. Wood (1877) · DecisionDepot

Loupe v. Wood

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1877 No. No. 4961Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A landlord is not liable in tort for property damage caused by the defective construction of a cellar when the damage resulted from natural causes rather than an affirmative wrong or neglect of duty by the defendant.

Issues

Whether a landlord is liable in tort for damages caused by the defective construction of a demised cellar during a rainstorm and high tide.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded with directions to nonsuit.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The damage did not result from any affirmative wrong done by the defendant, or neglect of duty on his part, for which he can be held responsible in this action.”

“The plaintiffs should have been nonsuited on the fourth ground stated by the defendant in his motion for a nonsuit.”

Synopsis

■ Damages Caused by a Tobtv—If a party leases to another a cellar for storing goods, and represents that it is dry and safe from water, the fact that its walls are defectively constructed, so that, as the result of a rainstorm and high tide, the water is backed up in a sewer and forced into the cellar; and the goods are injured, do not give the lessee a cause of action in tort to recover the damages.

By the Court: The respondent admits in argument here that the action is not “on a warranty, express or implied, nor an action ex contractu,” nor “upon misrepresentation,” but is.in tort. The supposed tort consists only in the alleged fact that the cellar which was demised to the plaintiffs was imperfectly and defectively constructed, so that, as the result of a heavy rainstorm, conjointly with a high tide in the bay, the water was backed up in the main sewer in California street, and was forced under the sidewalk and into the cellar. The damage did not result from any affirmative wrong done by the defendant, or neglect of duty on his part, for which he can be held responsible in this action.

The plaintiffs should have been nonsuited on the fourth ground stated by the defendant in his motion for a nonsuit.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to nonsuit the plaintiffs.

Loupe v. Wood

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief