81 Cal. 58 | Cal. | 1889
Works, J.
This is an action by an employee of a tenant of business property, against the- landlord, for
And the rule that the landlord was not liable to strangers for a failure to repair applied with equal force to the tenant and his employees. (1 Thompson on Negligence, 323; O’Brien v. Capwell, 19 Barb. 497.)
The respondent contends that this rule has been changed by section 1941 of our Civil Code, and that the landlord is thereby bound to repair, precisely as if he had covenanted to do so in the lease. But this court has held directly to the contrary in the case of Van Every v. Ogg, 59 Cal. 563, in which it is said:—
“It is insisted that the section last cited, by operation of law, inserts in every lease a covenant on the part of the landlord to repair. But bearing in mind that at the common law no such covenant was implied, and reading the two sections together, the intent seems clear that the obligation of the landlord should be limited by the extent of the privilege conferred upon the tenant; that it is the duty of the landlord to repair upon notice, and if he does not perform this duty, he is to be compelled to pay," by deduction from the rent, to the extent of a.*60 month’s rental, or, at the option of the tenant, the term be concluded without redress to the landlord.”
. It follows that the complaint did not state a cause of action, and that none was shown by the evidence.
Judgment and order reversed.
Fox, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.