*1 Yol. 1922. King.
(cid:127)Roman v. KATHERINE D. ROMAN, Appellant, v. JOHN C.
KING. One, July 23, Division 1921. Repair: Duty
1.STEPS TO DOUBLE PLAT: of Landlord. Whenever portion of owner a house a demises of it to which is access by way halls, stairways approaches of or other to be used portions same, common with the owner or tenants of other owner, by transaction, pos- retains such as to the tenant duty session control and undemised such facilities and it is his keep keep them or to to use reasonable care to them in safe con- enjoyment possession. for of the tenant dition of his use house, consisting upper flat Where there was a double of an story by one-story porch, lower fronted a common from which walk, single steps granitoid a led down to the owner set house, having the two stories leased to different tenants month, purposes, pos- from month to for residence retained such steps duty them as made his to session and control of in a kegp care to safe condition for or to reasonable thena use tenants. use both Invitation to Use. One who another -: invites -: -:
2. premises those in law to see that is bound to come his safely may invitation in such are landlord, very lease, by by act of accepted; and a possession leasing them, of the undemised control retains purposes by leading residence dif- steps flat used into a double enter, flat tenants, tenants such invitation to an ferent maintain them that each steps, his it is so4 neglects safety, if he the flat'in enter can the tenants any injury tenant caused liable for he is them maintain such unsafe condition. —,-; -; landlord a The refusal -: Eviction. ten- used flat house double to his entrance maintain purposes, con- residence month for month ants from safety, depart is method they enter dition that wrongful eviction. Use: Contribu- Knowledge Continued Unsafe Condition:
-:4. front Negligence. tory parties to month from month different leased double 289 Mo.—41 SUPREME OF COURT condition, knowledge purposes,
residence after of their care, not of itself conclusive of due since such lack evidence using knowledge require them the tenant desist from does *2 manner, contributory a- in a careful negligence. nor careful of them render use wrongdoer encourage to not the inter- law does wrong against pose as one from its his who has a suffered defense reason, good compel tenant, The law without effects. will not a safety door, full use of to abandon her front the free and which monthly rental, her a is included in and of of .use make set sgfe steps. back Repair Steps: -: of Other her 5. Evidence. Plaintiff sued land- personal injuries lord for to the unsafe rotten and condition due flat, steps story to the front entrance a one of which to she had previously employed Some time the defendant had leased. penter a car- repair steps, carpenter to the back and took de- to a fendant note had “All written: work is done connecting right.” paper There no evidence with the sub- the suit, ject testimony of the while the of defendant affirma- shows tively BelcL, no connection. there was admission the against paper prejudicial plaintiff, evidence was error -- n : Step: Negligence. Meddling Contributory Loose For 6. With to move the tenant the loose because end wooden —loose inches,' put carrier is rotten —six seven and wooden then to occupied before, pick position it or to it back in the and neighbors put it to then to it back where was her and show before, negligence, not an act of and does constitute does fix when, responsibility injury subsequently, such tenant for her slipped descending steps, from under said foot and her ground; thereby and instruction she was thrown an contributory negligence tells the that such acts constitute . recovery damages her for her landlord in- which bars defendant; juries peremptory for instruction to find in effect a is highly prejudicial to her. the law that It is not is and leading with a her leased tenant meddles safety, liability from all her own the owner released interest of dangerous creating negligence safety situation so re- for quired its correction. --¡’Duty Negligence. and Tenant: It is the Landlord 7. steps landlord to exercise reasonable care entrance building the use a safe condition a double having persons of all social or the stories her, is entitled free relations with she business adjunct enjoyment necessary constant pf require premises, law does not cease leased Yol. enjoyment permit moment landlord chooses dangerous, them, to become continue to usé exercise reasonable care to be determined in view of extent danger neglect and nature 'of created the owner’s or refusal duty, perform knowledge and if notice or with due necessary repairs make fails to injured by unsafe condition entitled to recover she is ,(cid:127) damages. from him
Appeal City Court.— St. Louis Hon. M. Circuit Judge.
Hartmann, Reversed remanded. Thompson appellants. B. & Ford W.
'JE. (1) given The instruction for the in a *3 negligence (saving excepting case, cases res int loquitur) jury ipsa specific must confine the to the acts negligence petition, out in the set and it is error to give general they instruction to the effect if that find negligent plaintiff then defendant was was entitled good recover. where there is a Likewise, suf- plea contributory negligence, speci- ficient wherein the contributory negligence fic acts are stated, the court give general should not instruction to find for the de- they plaintiff guilty if that also fendant, find negligence contributing injury, without restrict- ing finding contributory negligence acts specifically Buesching stated the answer. thus v. G-aslight Mo. 219; 73 Mitchell v. 99 Co., Clinton, Mo. 152; Ry, Ill Co., 335; Fulks v. Railroad Mo. Baker v. Co., (2) Mo. 140. Defendant’s instruction No’. 147 4 is given. should not been erroneous and have There is plaintiff moving no evidence that “after the tread from occupied position supporting it on the risers it” place- proper undertook back in then place, said tread its manner that but did such a when so she short- ly passed upon thereafter down said and went displaced it and caused her tread, became to fall. 644 SUPREME OF COURT
Homan v. upon The evidence this feature of the case all one way placed and to that uncontradicted, the effect position just upon back it had been riser, as'it before she moved it. the instruction assumed Further, step proper that the before moved it been in had position, perfectly it assumed that had been safe perfectly and would have remained safe for the placed assump- “manner” which she it back, which entirely tion contradicts the entire facts disclosed plaintiff According record. sowas loose very long remained loose for and had time, that out end of it moved six or inches, could be seven according (his while to defendant mother-in-law and being light sister-in-law the witnesses -who shed this upon defendant) plaintiff it for was so loose that it pulled entirely it it off riser held air. jury instruction told this Yet, step resting, upon so safe even thus loose, repair riser to exonerate the defendant for failure to reasonably jury it and s'afe, make could placed that the back find in such slipped out a manner afterwards as she was (3) stairway. principle descending of law petition is based, plaintiff, on behalf which the were instructed Geeser, announced in the decision Miller v. App. Realty Mo. Home Co. Carius, v. S. 751. W. *4 respondent. Kinealy
Kinealy &
for
(1)
not
If
entitled
recover, question
to error
instructions becomes im-
Railroad,
Bradley
212
873;
material. Giles v.
S. W.
v.
Mining
Mo.
Trainer v.
Co.,
320;
Tea
213
& Coffee
Co.,
Railroad,
39;
252
243
Hurck v.
Mo.
359;
Mo.
Frick v.
(2)
643.
In no event
223
can a
Ins.'Co.,
S. W.
land-
injuries
be
liable
unless
is shown
lord
held
that'
‘
alleged
premises.
control
defective
he retained
645
1922.
Yol. of St.
v.
551; Kilroy
City
Mo.
Bender
250
Weber,
v.
168
Co.,
257;
Trust
Mo.
79;
242 Mo.
v.
Louis,
McGinley
133
v. Klute,
Marcheck
630;
Mo.
Norcross,
Troth
111
v.
685.
Mo.
Hill,
App.
(3)
Mo.
Land v.
157
App. 281;
question
guilty
Plaintiff
in going
Arm-
Town v.
Cyc. 112;
20.
contributory
negligence.
54;
v.
107 Wis.
Mich.
McGinn
580;
French,
75
strong,
111.
O
v. O
Surman,
App. 282;
’Dwyer
’Brien,
116
Martin v.
‘‘ eighteenth day upon May, plain- That while ordinary upon part, in the exercise of care tiff, was passing flight steps over and down wooden said upper going of said flat to front door steps ground, purpose egress using and said customary in the usual and manner, without therefrom, steps part flight fault one of wooden steps entirely became mentioned of wooden above loose carriage upon from the wooden and unfastened which slipped plaintiff’s step resting from under said and thereby plaintiff thrown on a and stone foot, flight bottom of said wooden fell in at the permanent serious and manner that sustained such injuries system.” body nervous to her plaintiff’s injuries stating nature of After .. petition proceeds as follows: were serious “ flight Plaintiff states said injured injury time of at the said she possession were the control of the
of and under defendant stairway for the common common use and constituted a upper occupying tenants and lower of defendant’s two-story building, and that said defendant’s flats legal duty of defendant thereof it was reason reasonably safe condition the same necessary ordinary of in building. upper Plaintiff states flat of said per- negligently defendant violation of said repair remain out of mitted said condition at the time and for an unsafe prior injury, long period to the date of said of time constituting the boards that one of this, to-wit, Vol. *6 common, stairway one side thereof
or tread of said by reason of the unfastened wooden car- was loose and having step riage upon rested said become so which step decayed or could not board rotten and that said not hold a nail thereto, as be nailed or fastened would step or it on and said board side, driven into said had become and condition its said loose unfastened using lawfully persons the same, and that was unsafe ordinary care in the exercise could of. knew, defendant repair step out o£ and un- have that said known, dangerous condition.” and in a safe alleged Damages in the sum $25,000. asked are contributory pleads general denial, after a answer, negligence as follows: says answering, any in- defendant
“Further juries plaintiff may upon have the oc- sustained petition to her to in the were due own casion referred contributing shortly negligence thereto, directly negligently prior fell she moved said she time occupied, position step it had theretofore from the place placed negligently the board she in that the time position she and in fell, in which it at knowing negligently went that she the time.” at Issue in which same was replication. joined by steps leading porch up to the front
The four wooden supported long wood, carriers of for a were loose end them had been so that it one of time front several inches riser be moved out could respective flats it. The tenants washed beneath alternately. step had The loose first been ob- previous December condition in in that served May 1914, and occurred accident, nails into the loose occasions, driven end, on several had, rotten that these would carrier was wooden but the about two weeks before Plaintiff, of it. hold not take attention to its condi- defendant’s accident, directed out unless would move he fixed him told tion and SUPREME COURT OF promised it, which he hut failed to do until after the King, accident occurred. Mr. defendant, denied this, says substance tenant should so address him he tell him would to move out. day
On the accident was descend- pan ing full of chicken with a feed held steps slipped her; front of the loose out and she fell steps, striking suffering down the on her head and back, thereby injuries complained of.
She knew was loose because she had at- tempted says to nail it down. She it was knew bad, but did know how bad. She climed and down *7 day. them the same several times said She that when- put noticed ever she it was loose she a nail but it, thought getting never hurt In herself. answer to a question upon her cross-examination toas what she had morning with it that done before she was hurt she said: pulled “Why, a little it out I bit like that, it showed Hogan daughter, pushed to Mrs. and her and it hack in place always placed way it the I and hack did.” by police-
The condition of the was described a just injury man who after the as saw follows: “The right, all but the itself was carrier was rotten.” on it had walked he He said he as went without noticing this condition; was second from bottom. supported The evidence that carrier unquestioned. to be rotten seems When it was was re- paired an hour after the accident defendant about was present. scrap heap The thrown .into the carrier was disappeared. employed that in
The defendant testified 1913he one carpenter, porch fix the hack Settlemore, used in plaintiff’s flat; connection with check dated No- paid carpenter 5, vember this and re- $116.89 signed by plaintiff from him note as ceived follows: right.” Although the work done all defendant, “All gave tending being time, stand no evidence Vol. anything to do with the front that this work
to show objection plain- against porch steps, of the conrt, placed permitted and note evi- check tiff, testimony jury. The was before dence carpenter porch; employed to fix back that he he did that he of no other work that he knew pay note. The with this to him for his came duly admitting ruling excepted court papers. these thát in the defendant asked
After evidence was defend- jury be to return a verdict instructed gave plain- The then refused. court which was ant, following instruction: tiff the you
(1) find and are instructed defendant from all the evidence that believe premises known Numbers 3209 and as owner City of St. Avenue, Louis, North 3209A Newstead double flat and that on thére was a build- occupied upper ing 3209Awas that the known as flat, family, by plaintiff tenant of and her husband known as North flat, the lower defendant, and that occupied by family, another Newstead Avenue, opened upper to said that the front entrance porch, porch ground there was and that from said steps, that said one set of set *8 occupants (upper by flats each of said and used ingress egress lower) and in a common common as respective it was the of defendants, then as flats, to use reasonable care and dili- landlord, owner and steps gence keep in maintain said set of reason- and a plaintiff; ably use safe fit condition plaintiff day you find that on the therefore, further safe, steps injured reasonably were not said" either knew that defendant their con- condition, fit dition, ordinary might care or the exercise have defendant either condition, known their and that knew ordinary might by exercise care said or length plaintiff of time it for before have known injured given oppor- as have him a reasonable OP SUPREME COURT
Roman, v. repaired tunity plaintiff have it and time to before you injured, and further find and not with- that, believe put standing* steps fact said defendant said failed reasonably condition, safe and that direct re- as a plaintiff, making failure sult of said defendant’s while descending steps, and while use said with- part, out fault as mentioned in other instruc- your injury, then suffered an verdict should be tions, for diligence,’ plaintiff, words ‘reasonable care and
as used instruction, meant such a qf degree diligence may reasonably care and be ex- pected by man ordinary to be made intelli- gence, prudence and caution under like circumstances and conditions.”
Against objection plaintiff gave for de- following fendant the instructions to which action the .plaintiff excepted. duly jury
“3. The court that in instructs the no event can you plaintiff you find favor of the unless believe the evidence that the defendant failed to exercise ordi- nary question reasonably care to in a safe repair, plaintiff condition and and that exercised safety ordinary care for her own time she fell. jury you “4. The court that if instructs the believe morning plaintiff from the evidence that on injuries intentionally claims have received her question moved the tread of the hands, entirely position occupied partially either from the supporting plaintiff on the risers and that then it, under- place proper position, took to said tread back shortly did inso such manner that when thereafter passed down said on said went tread it displaced became fall, and cause her then is' your not entitled verdict must be recover, defendant. you “5. The court that if instructs the believe from the evidence that the occasion when received fall testified to her she knew the condi- *9 upon going of the which she tion went that Vol.
upon she failed exercise the on occasion same prudent person ordinarily would have care which an circumstances, the same rea- exercised under complains, which she the fall of she son thereof received your must be for not entitled to verdict recover, defendant. you jury that if be- “6. The court instructs shortly before re- from the evidence lieve complains she she lifted fall ceived the which negli- her then described tread board support likely gently that it so laid same down stepped upon fall if she and that same, to cause posi- while said board was same thereafter, she placed you stepped up- find, if tion she it, that same moved caused her on said board and your then verdict should be favor of the defend- fall, ant. you jury that if
“7. The instructs court believe upon when went the evidence question condition, knew its and knew of the danger, any, falling upon if went same, going and that she to take the chance of determined upon step, not entitled recover, then.she your verdict should be the defendant.” under the instructions returned a verdict judgment appealed defendant, appeal this was taken. entered, and
I. in this case are called to determine We liability containing separate two owner a house separate known as flats leased him tenements ants ten- having no whatever contractual relation with each respect premises, for his other, failure approach common the house Duty of by reason which condition, them safe Landlord. injured. proceeding Before to the facts briefly presented will trial bel'owwe the record liability. principles relating to such ‘These notice the frequent might expected, received notice from have, as England. country and the courts of both *10 C52 SUPREME COURT OF King.
Roman v. English The doctrine of the courts be illustrated by (1893) the cases of v. 2 Hancock, Q. Miller B. D. Hargroves Hartopp, 177, l. 180, c. &Co. v. 1 K. B. D. (1905) first 472. of these cases In the defendant premises was the owner of plaintiff in leased flats tenants. The railway company, collector a who in upon capacity called the tenant of one of these flats coming through and in the staircase, down defect leg. fell his and broke L. stair, J., said: The ‘ ‘ Bowen, using their tenants could flats the staircase. impliedly he let defendant, therefore, when the flats, granted to the tenants an easement over the staircase, occupation, purpose (cid:127)which he retained in own for the enjoyment of the flats so let. Under those cir repairs law as to the cumstances/what proceeded staircase?” He then to hold that under these given right circumstances landlord had keep reasonably7 nse the undertaken staircase and it persons safe for the use of the and also those tenants necessarily go up who would and down the stairs ordinary course of business with them. He concluded that the creation of the relation of landlord and tenant, absurdity upon such a case would an if not founded implied duty'-. such an His conclusion was founded Taylor reasoning of Lord Manseield v. Whitehead, Douglas, Hargroves Hartopp, 2 745. & In Co. v. this case followed Lord C. J., who, Alverstone, opinion commenting upon L. Bowen, j., Miller Case, said that he understood to mean that the duty repair was coextensive with that created ex press say, is to covenant; was an absolute duty condition at safe all events, merely and not take reasonable care to do so. expresses He some doubt as absolute nature duty, point, placing but declined to decide his deci ground sion failure the landlord to general exercise care. is the reasonable This doctrine country. [Sawyer McGillicuddy, of the courts in this v. Shipley Fifty
81 Mo.
v.
101
318;
Associates,
Mass. 251;
-
Yol.
653
Realty
Looney v.
129 Mass.
McLean,
33; Home
Co. v.
Metzger
(Ky.)
King
&
S. W.
Carius,
751;
Cassell,
v.
Ky.
Kansas Investment
537;
v.
160 Mass.
Carter,
Co.
Lloyd, 100 Ill.
421;
214;
Bissell v.
v.
O’Connor Andrews,
This doctrine was court in McGinley v. Trust Co., 168 Mo. was followed Ragan, in Turner v. decided the last term of this court *11 reported yet writing. by supported and not reasoning It is this may which seems to us unanswerable, be application stated in its direct to this case as follows: portion Whenever owner of a house demises of it way stairways by had which access is of halls, or other approaches to in be used common with the owner or ten- portions premises, ants of other the same owner, by posses- such retains as to the tenant the transaction, sion and control of the undemised facilities, and is his duty keep them or to use reasonable care to them the use safe condition of the ten- enjoyment possession. ant of his own Without application tenancy of this rule in his favor the is a and the farce, tenant month to as this month, case, may simple by be evicted notice without refusal of only his landlord to maintain means of The access. principle by well illustrated evidence this case, in which the owner testified that if his threa- repairs tened unless be to leave should made as to apartments safety, her to enable simply enter her he would impossible go. ap- have told her It that the plication of the rules of common should create law such a condition. principle
It ais too well established tó be now thoughtlessly who invites another one abandoned upon premises to come is bound in law to see premises those condition that the are invitation accepted. safely In case the lease was an enter the invitation way apparently provided. already In return owner monthly exacted a rental. could enter She cross- SUPREME COURT OF premises ing gave the use of his own way under and she was feet, entitled to have them safety. rights maintained so that she could do so Her under the lease constituted the measure of his respect. property purpose constructed of a implies so residence, used. This use free en- purposes, trance and exit for business and social already the most of the cases to which we have referred persons entering leaving hold that all so do so implied equally invitation of the owner are en- protection titled.to the same as the tenant himself. question There is branch same to which proceeding we should advert before to the facts of this already case. We have noticed the effect of failure to maintain the facilities for safe entrance and exit wrongful from the as a method of eviction, plainly suggested defendant in his testi- mony. necessary This has made another rule which has thoroughly become jurisprudence, established in our expressed by Kentucky Appeals is Realty Court of in Home supra,
Co. v. Carius, as follows: *12 urged plaintiff’s equal knowledge “It that right defendant of the condition of the bars her agree to recover herein. We cannot with this contention. practically These constituted the means apartments, access to the two and were used both necessarily tenants, known facts the landlord. to Because inaccessibility their and condition the other entrances were seldom used. Mere continued use of a common passageway, knowledge after its condition, is not of itself conclusive evidence of a lack due care part on the knowledge the tenant, since such does not require using the tenant to desist from same in careful nor contributory manner, render the careful use of same ” negligence. [Looney v. McLean, Mass. 33.] proposition expressed We think the in these and other cases is a one. sound not We think the do. law encourage wrongdoer interposing should his own TEEM, Vol. against
wrong has suffered one who as a defense It is this case its effects. true through yard, and will her hack we a rear door to access safely presume to a way wound somewhere some It that under circumstances street. also be might plaintiff's duty protect her land- been have by subjecting round- herself same lord loss right process, consider, about but she also had secured to convenience least, some extent at her. own encountering her even to extent lease, danger might possibly the landlord react which compel her, without who good it. law will violates free full and door, to abandon her front reason, monthly rental. use of in her included into the II. Soon after the moved house, employed Settlemore, one he the defendant whom de- carpenter,” porch. back “a kind fix scribed to him ’with a On 5th came note November Settlemore reading signed by plaintiff, “All as follows: thereupon right.” gave He all is done w°rk Baci^steps for his Settlemore check work $116.89 Although person porch. defendant on the back papers produced them, court identified these two they anything suggestion referred made no porch amounted on the back but the work objection yet against insistent sum, plaintiff, court, jury. papers, go permitted both This assigned insisted on errors action this court. plain- papers were introduced, these
At the time Monday, Sep- the tenth of “that tiff had testified being things moved were when tember, 1913, moving over defendant called man, moving phone man that the was afraid notified him *13 steps, things heavy the front in over move go that ahead, he would fix told her that defendant piano, everything up,” “took her etc., man and that the SUPREME OP MISSOURI, COURT the back stairs account condition of the front steps.” following also that in She December steps found that one the out front loose. This was the on which she fell.
This is evidence in the we can find the record papers subject connecting the these two with' of this might urged or which as an excuse for suit, their ad- employed mission Defendant stated evidence. that put up porch, Settlemore to the that- the amount of the brought check that service, Settlemore pay him note of the his own obtain his volition for that work. papers admission of
The these two evidence judicial they amounts to a direction to the tend, either of themselves or connection with some other prove plaintiff, case, evidence on on day expressed about the fifth November, 1913, steps, satisfaction of these front that the which their ends were nailed carriers to were not rotten at time of accident six and half months later. The fact these were not, September, strong enough to bear considered weight piano they of a is no evidence that were unsafe for to walk at that time or any later date. explanation gave this note
Plaintiff’s is that she negro paper-hanger it that he show had, satis- factorily completed job papering a little her, in her flat. thing complains of which now is that these carriers and to rested
they were nailed rotten and would not were hold .the place, nails which should them so that one end step gave way beneath her feet and caused her probably fall. This defendant true, was on .was spot carpenter injury, an with a within hour after the repaired damage, using old same throwing scrap into carriers structure, new heap putting in new ones. *14 TEEM, MAECH Yol. .657 King. Roman r. reasons we have we constrained
For the stated are permitting to in in note hold that the was error court go pertinent the.jury to to check to as evidence nothing the record con- issue in before them. There is necting any issue, them in manner with while that testimony affirmatively that shows of defendant himself no That it when con- was, there was connection. in court in ad- sidered connection action of the with the evident, mitting prejudicial plaintiff, highly it, plaintiff III. that had known since testified in December, loose, sometime complained about it. That and had to defendant he had promised to fix tried fix it her- that she had it and driving in That on it.
self, nails morning the accident she of and before With^oose step: one end, it loose and had found Contrib n Hogan attention of Mrs. atid called the utory Negligence. daughter, the mother-in-law and lived next door, who defendant, sister-in-law pulling six inches, the loose end or seven fact out place. putting in then it back daughter Hogan testified she had and her
Mrs. picked up step, and then but had this, done again. (cid:127)put position in back it being plea contributory negligence
Defendant’s removing plaintiff’s negligence limited occupied neg- position theretofore it had position placing ligently it it in the which was at the negligently going it time she afterward fell, knowing at the time, the condition which gave instruction number four, and the asked court copied were told that statement, in our which the morning they from the evidence on believed u intentionally plaintiff accident tread moved question entirely her hands, either position occupied partially risers from the place supporting then undertook it, proper position, did said tread 289 Mo.—42 SUPREME COURT OF shortly passed
manner that thereafter down when displaced said it became went tread not entitled and caused her fall, then ’’ equivalent peremptory recover. instruc- This argument requires no tion to find defendant. It *15 not submit to demonstrate was It that this error. does meddling negligence question in with the the the of step, moved she if, testified, but that as she assumes put it then back end out of seven the loose six inches Hogans occupied position the or, before, had as it put up picked then to it them it and showed testified, an act of before, it she committed back where was it responsibility negligence for own in- fixed her the posi- notwithstanding placed jury, it in same she the that (cid:127) words, if other she meddled it. In tion that she found safety, .her in interest of own it even the all, with negligence liability for from all in was owner released safety required creating that a situation so principle to lead the con- correction. would its This injury person recover for an re- that no could clusion trap attempt him. in an remove the set for He ceived to must into first it. no
In case there evidence whatever that this plaintiff any meddling contributed to with the injury. testifying herself, for She, to extent Hogans, for the defendant both witnesses question, when testified substance moved step, put up picked it it back was before. or as power it her was within no evidence There is posses- undemised and it. were mend subject of both his tenants owner, of the sion egress ingress, purposes and this use he for reasonable to make all care safe, to exercise bound compensation included his rental. for which permitted negligently it become unsafe and that If injury the fact cause condition picked attempted repair or it or may it, laid have changing not condition, did lessen without down it Yol. charged responsibility with the
the. keeping for her nse. it a safe necessary to reverse and remand
IV. As will already be of noticed, canse for errors proceedings in the with further service connection contributory neg- briefly rule trial court to state particular ligence applicable class at the time was, cases- The Negligence^ premises injuries, her as tenant steps, all these entitled to month to month, use^ personal premises, own to her access- having relations business social with access others might necessary make it or desirable' her. her which capacity, persons passing All such tenancy, entitled to the fact of were, part owner care on the reasonable safety. respect She paid( conditions *16 her to these facilities rent in advance and title complete. use these The of free and constant enjoyment necessary of her own residence, and require enjoyment her to cease does not law permit danger- it to become moment owner chooses possession approach inis of ous. While the. premises, part her own is the easement owner, may it in the exercise continue use still be determined the extent reasonable care, view danger neglect by the created owner’s and nature perform duty, right own or refusal Realty supra; enjoyment. Looney Carius, [Home Co. v. upon due notice or 33.] If 129 Mass. with McLean, dangerous knowledge still fails to such repairs necessary bound to is not vacate make the premises damages for and resort her suit relief, may, care as is indicated exercise such practicable dangler, continue safety. The landlord to do reasonable with door his tenant, set front a deadfall before damages consequent exemption in- claim SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, ex Pollock rel. v. State Becker. ground on the sole that he making succeeded hud to enter or leave that route. In such jury may weigh
a case the the need of the tenant in the cupidity same balance into which the of the owner has already opinion unnecessary express been cast. any It is propriety remaining
on the instructions. judgment City of the Circuit Court St. is Louis reversed the cause remanded for further proceedings principles accordance herein Ragland stated. and Small, CG., concur. opinion foregoing
PER CURIAM:—The of Brown, adopted opinion isC., as the of the court. All of the judges concur.
[*] THE rel. H. ex STATE JOHN POLLOCK v. CHARLES Secretary
U. BECKER, of State. August 1, Banc, In Legislature 1. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT: Referendum: Power of Assembly prevent to Prevent. The General cannot the reference legislative petition people aof act to the referendum for their rejection, approval by inserting the act section necessary preservation enactment public for the immediate safety, fact, peace, health' when it is not nor inserting act from determin- words inhibit the court subject ing WOODSON, J.; [Per reference. whether WALKER, ELDER, BLAIR, J., GRAVES and T. C. JAMES *17 BLAIR, JJ., concurring; JJ., DAVID E. dissent- HIGBEE AND ing.] Adopted Another State: PROVISION: 2. CONSTITUTIONAL Exception. general rule, general Adopted: Interpretation Aiso courts, expression frequent is that where is the provision has been borrowed an- constitutional a statute borrowing adoption state, prior state had pre- other state, highest of that court construction received a light borrowing adopted it in the sumption state is that