H. C. Capwell Company, a Corporation v. Blake

9 Citing cases

  1. Columbia Lab., Inc. v. Cal. Beauty Etc. Co.

    24 Cal.2d 114 (Cal. 1944)   Cited 5 times
    In Columbia Laboratories, Inc. v. California Beauty etc. Co., 24 Cal.2d 114, 117-118 [ 148 P.2d 15], the court said that a landlord was liable to a tenant for negligence in maintaining and repairing those "`portions of the premises of which the lessor retains possession and control.'"

    Thus the basic principle of law is stated in 15 Cal.Jur. 706, section 116: "The rule that there is no implied obligation upon the landlord, in the absence of statute, to keep the demised premises in repair or fit for occupation, applies only to the premises actually leased, and does not operate to free the landlord from liability to the tenant for injuries arising from defects in other portions of the premises of which the lessor retains possession and control." ( H.C. Capwell Co. v. Blake, 9 Cal.App. 101 [ 98 P. 51]; Rathbun Co. v. Simmons, 90 Cal.App. 692 [ 266 P. 369]; Inglis v. Garland, 19 Cal.App.2d Supp. 767 [ 64 P.2d 501].) In other words, the defendants' character as landlord does not exempt them from the consequences of their own negligence, although the injured party happens to be their tenant.

  2. Longbotham v. Takeoka

    239 P. 105 (Or. 1925)   Cited 14 times
    In Longbotham v. Takeoka, 115 Or. 608, 239 P. 105, 43 A.L.R. 1285, goods of a tenant were injured because landlord allowed the drain upon his part of the premises to become clogged and the rain water invaded the leased premises.

    In other words, the defendant's character as landlord does not exempt him from the consequences of his own negligence although the injured party happens to be his tenant. The rule thus stated is supported by the following precedents: Capwell Co. v. Blake, 9 Cal.App. 101 ( 98 P. 51); Siggins v. McGill, 72 N.J. Law, 263 ( 62 A. 411, 111 Am. St. Rep. 666, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 316); Levine v. Baldwin, 87 App. Div. 150 ( 84 N Y Supp. 92); Dreeves v. Schoenberg, 82 N.J. Law, 335 ( 82 A. 530); Rubenstein v. Hudson, 86 N.Y. Supp. 750; Lorensen v. Klebanski, 193 N.Y. Supp. 224; Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544 (24 Am. Rep. 54); Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N.Y. 269 ( 29 N.E. 104, 14 L.R.A. 238); Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401; Center v. Davis, 39 Ga. 210; Pike v. Brittan, 71 Cal. 159 ( 11 P. 890, 60 Am. Rep. 527); Friedenberg v. Jones, 63 Ga. 612; Smith v. Faxon, 156 Mass. 589 ( 31 N.E. 687); Kneeland v. Beare, 11 N.D. 233 ( 91 N.W. 56); Perry v. Levy, 87 N.J. Law, 670 ( 94 A. 569); Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 ( 118 N.W. 1023, 30 Am. St. Rep. 613); Glickauf v. Maurer, 75 Ill. 289 (20 Am. Rep. 238). In the last case here cited, the court said:

  3. Napolin v. Hotel Rose

    137 Cal.App.2d 701 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 3 times

    In contrast, the water damage cases upon which plaintiffs rely were predicated upon evidence which showed the source of the escaping water, a source which was under the control of the defendant, and evidence that furnished a basis for an inference that such right of control had been negligently exercised. In H.C. Capwell Co. v. Blake, 9 Cal.App. 101 [ 98 P. 51], a landlord negligently failed to control the drainage of rainwater from the roof; in Rathbun Co. v. Simmons, 90 Cal.App. 692, 698-699 [ 266 P. 369], a tenant's merchandise was damaged by water from a defective roof and drain system which was under the landlord's control and there was evidence that the latter had been negligent. In Pirrone v. Nuccio, 78 Cal.App.2d 864 [ 179 P.2d 18], it conclusively appeared that an upper tenant had notice that there was a leakage of water "either from the bathroom or from the toilet room into the ceiling of the restaurant [below] during a ten-day period immediately preceding the deluge" (p. 869) and failed to use ordinary care in the inspection of the facilities provided for the occupants of the rooms on the second floor of the building directly over the premises occupied by the plaintiff.

  4. McDonell v. American Trust Co.

    130 Cal.App.2d 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 13 times
    In McDonell v. American Trust Co. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 296 [ 279 P.2d 138], plaintiff, suing for general damages, sought punitive damages based upon allegations that defendants "wilfully, consciously, intentionally and deliberately failed to keep the roof and drain-wells in working condition," and refused to repair the same with "a conscious, wilful and deliberate intention to injure and harm" them.

    ( Columbia Lab., Inc. v. California Beauty etc. Co., 24 Cal.2d 114, 117 [ 148 P.2d 15]. See also H.C. Capwell Co. v. Blake, 9 Cal.App. 101, 111 [ 98 P. 51]; Rathbun Co. v. Simmons, 90 Cal.App. 692, 697-698 [ 266 P. 369]; Inglis v. Garland, 19 Cal.App.2d 767, 769-770 [ 64 P.2d 501]; 15 Cal.Jur. 706, Landlord and Tenant, § 116.) [4] The applicable principle is well stated in section 361 of the Restatement of the Law of Torts: "A possessor of land, who leases a part thereof and retains in his own control any other part which is necessary to the safe use of the leased part, is subject to liability to his lessee and others lawfully upon the land with the consent of the lessee or a sublessee for bodily harm caused to them by a dangerous condition upon that part of the land retained in the lessor's control, if the lessor by the exercise of reasonable care (a) could have discovered the condition and the risk involved therein, and (b) could have made the condition safe."

  5. Columbia Laboratoreis, Inc. v. California Beauty Supply Co.

    140 P.2d 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)

    Nevertheless, plaintiff relies upon cases which state the rule that if an owner leases a portion of his building and retains control of the remainder and if he does not exercise common care and prudence in the management and oversight of that portion of the building which belongs to his especial supervision and care, and damages are sustained by the tenant on that account, the landlord becomes liable for his negligence. H. C. Capwell Co. v. Blake, 1908, 9 Cal.App. 101, 111. 98 P. 51; Rathbun Co. v. Simmons, 1928, 90 Cal.App. 692, 266 P. 369. The rule has no application here, as there was no pleading or finding of negligence.

  6. Inglis v. Garland

    19 Cal.App.2d 767 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)   Cited 18 times
    Distinguishing case from "contracts by which common carriers sought to exculpate themselves from negligence in respect to duties imposed by law, or where the parties had not been free to contract upon an equal footing. . . ."

    The trial court gave judgment for plaintiff, impliedly finding that defendant was negligent in not having discovered and remedied the apparently readily ascertainable condition in the drain pipe prior to November 17th, and we think that the circumstances related, coupled with others appearing in the record, are clearly not insufficient as a matter of law to support such finding. (See Rathbun Co. v. Simmons, (1928) 90 Cal.App. 692, 696 [ 266 P. 369]; H.C. Capwell Co. v. Blake, (1908) 9 Cal.App. 101 [ 98 P. 51].) Whether or not there was negligence chargeable to the defendant was a question of fact and upon that issue the trial court's finding is conclusive upon us.

  7. Rathbun Co. v. Simmons

    90 Cal.App. 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)   Cited 8 times

    [1] The rule is well established that in the absence of an express covenant by the landlord to make necessary repairs, the tenant is the one to keep up the leased premises. ( Capwell Co. v. Blake, 9 Cal.App. 101 [ 98 P. 51]; Longbotham v. Takeoka, 115 Or. 608 [43 A.L.R. 1285, 239 P. 105].) The reason for this rule is that the tenant takes the estate as he finds it with its advantages and drawbacks, and if he would protect himself against the expense of betterment, he must either not acquire the tenancy or exact from the landlord a covenant to make the repairs necessary to the enjoyment of the estate.

  8. Germansen v. Egan

    130 Pa. Super. 21 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1938)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that "[t]he roof of a building rented to different tenants is not leased to the tenant of the floor just below it, but remains in the control of the landlord" where a plaintiff was injured when snow accumulated on a cracked skylight and caused it to break and fall on the plaintiff

    See DuBoisRecreation Co. v. Boyle, 95 Pa. Super. 219. She alone had authority to repair or replace it. It follows that she was responsible for any damages naturally resulting from her negligent maintenance of the roof and skylight. See DuBoisRecreation Co. v. Boyle, supra; Longbotham v. Takeoka, 115 Ore. 608, 239 P. 105; H.C. Capwell Co. v. Blake, 9 Cal.App. 101, 98 P. 51; Center Treadwell v. Davis, 39 Ga. 210; Sullivan v.Northridge, 246 Mass. 382, 141 N.E. 114. On February 2, 1935 the plaintiff was working in the room under this skylight.

  9. Spore v. Washington

    96 Cal.App. 345 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)   Cited 24 times

    In 36 Corpus Juris, page 220, we find: "Actual knowledge of a defection is not necessary but it is sufficient that the landlord could have learned of the same by the exercise of reasonable care." In Capwell v. Blake, 9 Cal.App. 111 [ 98 P. 51], the rule is announced that where the landlord or owner has control of a portion of the premises by implication he undertakes to exercise that control as to inflict no injury upon his tenants. If he does not exercise common care and prudence in the management and oversight of that portion of the premises which belongs to his care and damages are sustained by a tenant he becomes liable to him.