Leonard v. Storer

115 Mass. 86, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 155
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 9, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 115 Mass. 86 (Leonard v. Storer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leonard v. Storer, 115 Mass. 86, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 155 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Ames, J.

It does not appear that the defendant had any con-

nection with the injury complained of, except that he was the owner of the building in front of which it occurred. The whole of this building had been leased for a long term of years to a tenant who was in actual occupation at the time of the accident. By the terms of the lease, the tenant had bound himself to make certain specific alterations in the lower story of the building, and also to make at his own expense “ all needful and proper repairs, both internal and external, of the demised premises.” The lessee was the occupant of the entire estate, and, as between himself and the public, was bound to keep the building in such a state of repair that the adjoining highway should be safe for the use of travellers thereon. “ It is the occupier who is primé facie liable [89]*89to third persons for damages arising from any defect.” Kirby v. Boylston Market Association, 14 Gray, 249, and cases there cited. The control of the tenant included the roof of the building, as well as its interior, and it does not appear that he might not have cleared the roof of snow by the exercise of due care, or that he could not by proper precautions have prevented the accident. We cannot say upon this report that any neglect of duty, or any wrongful act, on the part of the defendant, was the cause of the injury. In Shipley v. Fifty Associates, 101 Mass. 251, and 106 Mass. 194, it appeared that the roof was not in the control of the various occupants of the building, but of the owners, who were therefore held responsible for its condition. As the judgment of the court below does not appear to have been erroneous, it is therefore Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harry Berger & Co. v. Estelle Alcock Admx.
35 Mass. App. Dec. 66 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1966)
Calway v. William Schaal & Son, Inc.
155 A. 813 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1931)
Smith v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
159 N.E. 501 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Meyers v. Pepperell Manufacturing Co.
119 A. 625 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1923)
Stefani v. Freshman
122 N.E. 293 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Indianapolis Union Railway Co. v. Sample
108 N.E. 400 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Bender v. Weber
157 S.W. 570 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Coman v. Alles
83 N.E. 1097 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Neas v. Lowell
79 N.E. 810 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Keeler v. the Lederer Realty Corporation
59 A. 855 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1904)
Atwill v. Blatz
95 N.W. 99 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1903)
Munroe v. Carlisle
57 N.E. 332 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Frischberg v. Hurter
52 N.E. 1086 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Texas Loan Agency v. Fleming
44 L.R.A. 279 (Texas Supreme Court, 1899)
Henson v. Beckwith
37 A. 702 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1897)
Lee v. McLaughlin
26 L.R.A. 197 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1894)
State v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway
35 N.E. 700 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Fellows v. Gilhuber
52 N.W. 307 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1892)
Ahern v. . Steele
22 N.E. 193 (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)
Nugent v. Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad
12 A. 797 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 Mass. 86, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-storer-mass-1874.