Daley v. Quick
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Lañdlobd and Tenant—Injuby to Tenant—Defective Woodshed—False Bepbesentations — Evidence—Agency—New Tbial.—Where a tenant who was injured by the falling of a defective woodshed, in an action against the landlord for damages for the injury, alleged in his complaint that the landlord falsely represented to him that the woodshed was safe and suitable as a place to store fire-wood, knowing the contrary to be true, and that the tenant was induced thereby to continue the tenancy, and place fire-wood therein, the allegations of fraud and misrepresentations are essential to his cause of action; and where issue was taken upon them, and the evidence failed to show that any wilful misrepresentations were made by the landlord or by any one authorized to represent him, and merely showed that a person authorized only to make repairs, and not authorized to make false representations, stated that the shed was safe, and there was no proof that he did not know or believe it to he unsafe, or that he had no reasonable ground for believing the representations to be untrue, and no evidence that any fact was suppressed that the landlord was bound to disclose to the tenant, Reid, that a verdict for the tenant was properly set aside, and a new trial of the action properly granted by the court.
Ed—Defects in Bented Pbemises—Caveat Emptob—Notice of Defects—Pbesumption—Acceptance of Bisk by Tenant—Eepaibs.—The principle of caveat emptor applies to the occupation of rented premises by a tenant as to any defects which are inherent and unknown to the landlord, and the landlord is not liable to the tenant for injuries received where he has done all that a reasonable, prudent man would have done toward fitting the place for occupation, and has not kept the tenant in ignorance of defects known to him; and when it would appear from an examination of the premises, such as an ordinarily prudent man would make before residing upon them, that they were unsafe, and that the defect rendering them so is discernible, the tenant is presumed to have had notice of such defect, and to have accepted the risks incident thereto if he occupies the premises and neglects to insist upon repairs, or to make repairs at the landlord’s expense.
Searls, C. Appeal from an order granting a new trial.
Plaintiff rented from the defendant, who was the owner thereof, from month to month a portion of the upper floor of a dwelling-house, known and designated as No. 3 Tehama Street, San Francisco, and took possession on or about March 21,1887. Plaintiff continued to occupy the premises as a tenant of the defendant until October 25, 1888, on which last-named day, while in the act of piling three pieces of wood weighing in the aggregate about one hundred and fifty pounds in a woodshed situate upon the upper floor, and contiguous to the rooms occupied by him, the floor gave way, and plaintiff fell with it to the [181]ground, whereby his foot was fractured and his ankle dislocated. The complaint after setting out the ownership of defendant, the tenancy and occupancy of the plaintiff, proceeds in substance to charge that defendant, with a view to retaining plaintiff as a tenant, falsely and fraudulently represented to him that the woodshed was safe and secure, and suitable as a place to store fire-wood; that plaintiff did not know the fact, but believing the statements to be true, was thereby induced to continue the tenancy and to place the wood therein, whereby he was injured; that defendant knew the condition of the property, and that it was unsafe and dangerous, and with full knowledge of all the facts falsely and fraudulently and with intent to defraud plaintiff made the representations, etc. The answer negatives all the allegations of the complaint tending to establish neglect, fraud, misrepresentations, or any representations in the premises. Plaintiff had a verdict for one thousand dollars. Defendant moved for a new trial, which motion, as before stated, was granted, and plaintiff appeals.
The following is the opinion of the learned judge who presided in the court below, rendered upon granting the motion for a new trial, amd which appears in the transcript: —
“ This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while he was a tenant of defendant. It appears from the complaint that the defendant being the owner of certain premises, let them to plaintiff on the twenty-first day of March, 1887; that appurtenant to said premises was a woodshed designed to be used in connection with the occupation of said premises as a dwelling; that on the twenty-fifth day of October, 1888, while the plaintiff was in the act of putting wood in said shed, the underpinning thereof gave way and said shed fell to the ground, a distance of about twelve feet, carrying with it the plaintiff, and that by reason thereof he suffered personal injuries. It is further alleged that the defendant made certain representations to the plaintiff regarding the safety and suitableness of said woodshed for the purpose for which it was intended. These representations, it is claimed, were false and known to be false by the defendant at the time, and fraudulently made by him for the purpose aud with the intent of inducing the plaintiff to rent
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)