X. Defects; liability for injuries to travelers. b. Liability of others.
makes an excavation near by, he will be
liable, if he does not take reasonable care
in protecting passers from falling into it.
Lepnick v. Gaddis, 26 L.R.A. 686, 72 Miss.
200, 16 So. 213.

d. In the absence of any issue as to nuisance, the liability of the owner of a build ing for damages sustained by a traveler on the highway, due to the fall of an awning attached to the building, is to be determined upon the principles of negligence, in accordance with the maxim, res ipsa loquitur, and not upon the doctrine of insurance of safety. Waller v. Ross, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 721, 100 Minn. 7, 110 N. W. 252. (Annotated)

e. One not acting under legislative authority maintains an awning over a public sidewalk at his peril; and a traveler in jured thereby who is himself free from blame may hold the owner of the awning liable for the injury, regardless of the question of negligence in its construction and maintenance. McCrorey v. Garrett, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 139, 109 Va. 645, 64 S. E. 978. (Annotated) f. The mere fall of an ornamental bracket from a building, to the injury of a person on the adjoining sidewalk, is not evidence of negligence on the part of the owner of the building. Joyce v. Black, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 863, 226 Pa. 408, 75 Atl. 602.

g. The owner of a building abutting on a sidewalk, upon which is insecurely fastened a pipe to carry water, is not absolved from liability for injury to a person on the walk by the fall of the pipe, by the fact that the building was in possession of a tenant who had obligated himself to keep the building in repair. Mitchell v. Brady, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 751, 124 Ky. 411, 99 Š. W. 266.

h. That a person injured on a sidewalk by the fall of a pipe insecurely fastened to a building abutting thereon lived in the building will not prevent his holding the owner and the tenant responsible for the condition of the exterior walls, liable for the injury. Mitchell v. Brady, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 751, 124 Ky. 411, 99 S. W. 266.

i. The question of negligence in leaving cracked windows above a sidewalk is for the jury, where the testimony tends to show a dangerous condition of the windows. Detzur v. B. Stroh Brewing Co. 44 L.R.A. 500, 119 Mich. 282, 77 N. W. 948.

§ 178. Open space inside building

line.

g 180. Water dripping from roof. Evidence to show negligence in casting

water on walk, see EVIDENCE, § 1272 a. Joint liability, see JOINT CREDITORS AND DEBTORS, § 8 e.

of ordinary prudence, has reasonable notice
a. A property owner who, in the exercise
that water from his roof, in conjunction
with any other cause, produces a danger-
responsible for the injury thereby caused..
ous condition upon a public sidewalk, is
Field v. Gowdy, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 236, 199
Mass. 568, 85 N. E. 884.

8 181. Vaults; coalholes; trapdoors;
covers; steps.
Municipal liability, see ante, § 147.
Liability of third person generally, see ante,
§ 157.

Effect of lease, see post, § 188.
Sufficiency of notice of defective condition
of grating, see post, § 239 b-d.
Evidence of defective condition of coal hole
in sidewalk, see EVIDENCE, §§ 1174 d,
1325 c, d.

Sufficiency of evidence to show knowledge
by property owner of dangerous con-

dition of coal hole, see EVIDENCE, §
1482 d.

Liability as indemnitor of municipality, see
INDEMNITY, § 4 d, e.

Recovery over, by property owner against
one primarily liable, see INDEMNITY, §
Liability of infant for negligence of servant
as to, see INFANTS, § 41 d.

5.

a. An unauthorized coal hole in a sidewalk is a nuisance per se. Lincoln v. First Nat. Bank, 60 L.R.A. 923, 67 Neb. 401, 93 N. W. 698.

b. It is the duty of an abutting property owner placing trap doors in a sidewalk for its sole use and benefit to properly and safely place and maintain them. Seattle v. Puget Sound Improv. Co. 12 L.R.A. (N.S.)

949, 47 Wash. 22, 91 Pac. 255.

c. If the removal of a cover from a coal

a. If a space inside the building line is permitted by the abutting owner to remain hole in the sidewalk by the permission of open, and to be used as part of the side- the owner of the property, creates danger walk, he must exercise due care not to place to persons passing along the sidewalk, the there dangerous obstructions which may reowner is liable for any negligence in fail. sult in injuries to persons lawfully on the ing to see that proper safeguards or warnwalk, including children who may be at-ings are provided to reasonably protect the tracted to, and enter upon, the premises. public from such danger. Rachmel v. Clark, 62 L.R.A. 959, 205 Pa. 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1147, 195 N. Y. 424, 88 N.

314, 54 Atl. 1027.

§ 179. Excavation.
Municipal liability, see ante, § 132.
Liability of third persons generally, see
ante, § 155.

On private premises near street, see NEGLI-
GENCE, § 73 g.

a. Where one allows a portion of his premises adjoining the street to be used by the public as part of the highway, and

E. 794.

Scott v. Curtis,

d. The owner of real property, who maintains a coal hole in the sidewalk in front of his property, is liable to a passer-by who is injured when falling into such hole when open and unguarded, or when negligently and carelessly covered, although the person or persons primarily negligent in omitting to cover the hole, or in negligently and carelessly covering it, are the employees of a coal dealer who were at the time engaged

X. Defects; liability for injuries to travelers. b. Liability of others.

in delivering coal. Scott v. Curtis, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1147, 195 N. Y. 424, 88 N. E. 794.

e. A property owner is bound to use reasonable care to keep a covering to a hole under the sidewalk in safe condition, although it is next to the building and out of the regular line of travel. McLaughlin v. Kelly, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 305, 230 Pa. 251, 79 Atl. 552.

f. Trustees of a church are not bound to keep the covering of an opening leading from the sidewalk to the cellar of the church safe for persons who attempt to make use of it to look into the church windows. Louisville v. fayden, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1193, 154 Ky. 258, 157 S. W. 4.

g. The owner of a coal hole in a sidewalk, and a coal company using it to put coal into the building, each owes the duty to travelers upon the walk to exercise due care to prevent their falling into the hole, of which neither is relieved by the duty of

265.

the other. French v. Boston Coal Co. 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 993, 195 Mass. 334, 81 N. E. (Annotated) h. For the breaking of a flagstone in the sidewalk over a vault in front of a business block, the owner of the premises is not liable in the absence of negligence, if the vault was made with consent of the authorities. Babbage v. Powers, 14 L.R.A. 398, 130 N. Y. 281, 29 N. E. 132.

i. Injury by stepping, when it was dark, into a coal hole about 2 feet back from the street line, in a space paved like the side

from the owner of property for injuries oc-
casioned by a fall from a public sidewalk
down an unguarded flight of steps leading
to defendant's cellar, there must be evi-
dence showing, or fairly tending to show,
some wrongful act or neglect of defendant,
or some omission of a duty which he owes
to the public. Wasson v. Pettit, 5 L.R.A.
794, 117 N. Y. 118, 22 N. E. 566.
§ 182. Low guy wire.
Municipal liability, see ante, § 129.
See also ante, § 156 e.

a. A derrick erected upon land by a licensee, with a guy stretched across a public highway so low as to be dangerous to persons using the road, is a nuisance for which the owner of the land is liable if he permits it to remain, although it may have been placed upon the land before he became the owner. Rockport v. Rockport Granite Co. 51 L.R.A. 779, 177 Mass. 246, 58 N. E.

1017.

or.

§ 183. Acts of independent contractLiability of municipality, see ante, § 120. See also ante, § 181 k.

a. Persons having a franchise to lay water pipes in streets cannot relieve themselves from responsibility for negligence in failing to cover the pipes properly, by letting the work to independent contractors and requiring the latter by express stipulation to perform the duty. Colgrove v. Smith, 27 L.R.A. 590, 102 Čal. 220, 36 Pac.

411.

walk in front of a house which stands 3 or 4 feet from the street, while a coal b. The fact that a defective covering over wagon was standing by the curb, and coal extended therefrom nearly to the house, and a coal hole in a sidewalk was put over it by an independent contractor, or his servants two employees of a coal dealer were prepar-will not relieve the owner of premises from ing to put in the coal, does not render the liability to a person who, without his fault, occupant of the house liable to the injured falls into it and is injured. Hawver v. person, although she was a foreign woman, Whalen, 14 L.R.A. 828, 49 Ohio St. 69, 29 ignorant of the custom of delivering coal (Annotated) through such holes, and did not see the coal hole, but stepped upon the coal from the steps of the next house, which came out to the street line. Lorenzo v. Wirth, 40 L.R.A. 347, 170 Mass. 596, 49 N. E. 1010.

j. An abutting property owner having a license from the municipality to maintain a vault under the sidewalk, with a coal hole leading through the sidewalk thereto, is bound to exercise only reasonable and ordinary care and precaution to keep it as safe for the use of the public as other parts of the sidewalk. West Chicago Masonic Asso. v. Cohn, 55 L.R.A. 235, 192 Ill. 210, 61 N.

E. 439.

k. The abutting property owner is liable for injury to a pedestrian in falling over a covering which constitutes an obstruction to footmen, placed by an independent contractor over a repaired sidewalk without signals or guard to protect the public from injury after dark. Kampmann v. Rothwell, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 758, 101 Tex. 535, 109 S. W. 1089. (Annotated) 1. To justify a submission of the case to the jury in an action to recover, upon the ground of defendant's negligence, damages

N. E. 1049.

c. Letting the work of building area walls and constructing coal vaults to an independent contractor will not relieve the owner of a city lot from his duty to see that an excavation in the sidewalk, which he has made for such vault, is granted with ordinary care. Hawver v. Whalen, 14 L.R.A. 828, 49 Ohio St. 69, 29 N. E. 1049.

(Annotated)

d. A property owner is not liable for injuries to a traveler caused by obstructions placed in the street in front of the property without danger signals, by an independent contractor whom he has employed to construct a building on the property. Hoff v. Shockley, 64 L.R.A. 538, 122 Iowa, 720, 98 N. W. 573.

e. Assent by the agent of a property owner to the placing of sand in the street in front of it, by an independent contractor who has undertaken to erect a building on the premises, will not render the property owner liable for injuries caused to travelers on the street by failing to mark the obstruction by warning lights after dark. Hoff v. Shockley, 64 L.R.A. 538, 122 Iowa, 720, 98 N. W. 573.

X. Defects; liability for injuries to travelers. b. Liability of others.

f. A property owner cannot relieve him- | (N.S.) 300, 215 Mass. 588, 102 N. E. 908.
self from liability for injuries to a traveler
(Annotated)
upon the highway by reason of the negli b. A property owner cannot escape lia-
gent failure to guard and light, after dark,bility for injury to a pedestrian through
a trench opened in the highway to connect ice formed on the sidewalk from water cast
his dwelling with the street water main, by thereon from a pipe constructed by him, be-
employing an independent contractor to cause at the time of the injury the property
perform the work. Thomas v. Harrington, was in possession of a tenant. Maloney v.
65 L.R.A. 742, 72 N. H. 45, 54 Atl. 285. Hayes, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 200, 206 Mass. 1,
(Annotated) 91 N. E. 911.
(Annotated)

b. Effect of lease.

§ 184. Generally.
Liability of tenants, see ante, § 163.
Necessity of notice of defect, see post, 239.
Joinder of lessor and lessee with munici-
pality in action for injury, see PARTIES,
§ 131 b.

a. One who lets property with a gate
swinging across the sidewalk contrary to
the provisions of an ordinance is liable for
injury to a pedestrian who comes in con-
tact with the gate when attempting to
pass the property on a dark night. Knight
v. Foster, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 286, 163 N. C.
(Annotated)

329, 79 S. E. 614.

§ 185. Defective sidewalk.
Municipal liability, see ante, §§ 146-151.
Liability of abutting owner generally, see
ante, § 175.

Notice of defect, see post, § 239.

b. A town which leases to an opera com-

c. A property owner who constructs a
pipe to drain water from a sink on the
premises across the sidewalk to the gutter
is not relieved from liability to one injured
while passing along the walk by a fall on
a ridge of ice formed from water flowing
from the pipe, by the fact that the water
was placed in the drain by a tenant in pos-
session of the premises. Brown v. White,
58 L.R.A. 321, 202 Pa. 297, 51 Atl. 962.
(Annotated)
tenants are not bound to keep watch to see
d. Owners of property in possession of
that ice dangerous to travel does not form
on the walks, in front of it which are prop-
erly constructed and in proper repair, where
their negligent construction of their build-
ings does not contribute to its formation;
and therefore they cannot be held liable for
injuries to a traveler by falling upon ice
of the existence of which they have no no-
tice. New Castle v. Kurtz, 69 L.R.A. 488,
210 Pa. 183, 59 Atl. 989.

e. A landlord is not liable for injury re-
a. A landlord is responsible to a party in-
jured by reason of a defect in the sidewalk ceived by a person from falling on ice which
in front of his premises, if such defect ex-ulate and remain on a sidewalk abutting
had been allowed by the tenant to accum-
isted at the time of the demise. McLaugh- the rented premises, notwithstanding that
lin v. Kelly, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 305, 230 Pa. the ice resulted from water which had
251, 79 Atl. 552.
flowed from the landlord's property through
rying off the refuse water across the side-
a ditch placed there for the purpose of car-
walk; the ice not being on the sidewalk
when the tenants entered into possession,
although the ditch was on the property at
that time, and was put there for the pur-
57 L.R.A. 749, 114 Ga. 929, 41 S. E. 63.

pany a hall which is situated in a village
wherein the town has no responsibility for
the street is not, because of such private use
of the hall, charged with liability for the
defective condition of a sidewalk in front
of the hall, since the sidewalk is a part of
the public street, for which the village
alone is responsible. Buchanan v. Barre, 23
L.R.A. 488, 66 Vt. 129, 28 Atl. 878.

§ 186. Ice on sidewalk.
Liability of abutting owner generally, see
ante, § 176.

Contributory negligence, see post, § 226.
Notice of condition, see post, § 239.
Landlord's liability for ice on private way,

see LANDLORD AND TENANT, § 152 f.
Liability of landlord to tenant, see LAND-
LORD AND TENANT, §§ 165 g, 174 p.
a. Although, contrary to statute, a prop-
erty owner lets the property with a con-
ductor pipe casting the water on the side-
walk, so as to create a nuisance in freezing
weather, he will not be liable for injury to
a pedestrian therefrom, if the lease gave
the tenant the right to make such altera-
tions and repairs as he deemed expedient,
and obligated him to save the landlord
harmless from any claim arising from
neglect to remove snow and ice from the
walks. Cerchione v. Hunnewell, 50 L.R.A.
L.R.A. Comb. Dig.-313.

pose above indicated.

Gardner v. Rhodes,

§ 187. Fall of snow or ice from
building.

a. A landlord, although not equipping his
building with such leader pipes and con-
ductors as a statute requires, is not liable
for an injury caused by snow and ice fall-
ing therefrom, where the tenant who al-
lowed them to accumulate had complete
control over the entire building under a
lease requiring him to repair and to hold
the landlord harmless from damage claims
for failure to remove snow and ice from the
roof and sidewalks. Coman v. Alles, 14
L.R.A. (N.S.) 950, 198 Mass. 99, 83 N. E.
1097.

b. A landlord is not liable for the fall of
snow from the roof of a building injuring
a person on the sidewalk, where the build-
ing, including its exterior, is subject to the
control of a tenant, even if his tenancy is
only at will. Lee v. McLaughlin, 26 L.R.A.
197, 86 Me. 410, 30 Atl. 65. (Annotated)

c. Where the wall of a building is on the

X. Defects; liability for injuries to travelers. d. Liability of others.

line of the highway, and a portion of the
roof projects over the highway, an injury
resulting therefrom by the fall of snow is
incidental to its construction and use; and
an allegation that such injury is caused by
negligence in the construction or manage-
ment of the building is none the less true
because the encroachment on the highway is
wrongful. Smethurst v. Independent Cong.
Church, 2 L.R.A. 695, 148 Mass. 261, 19 N.
E. 387.

d. A property owner who, when letting
the building, retains control of the con-
ductor pipe, is liable for injury to a pedes
trian on the adjoining sidewalk by the fall
of ice from a defect in the pipe, if he has
permitted the defect to exist for a long
period of time. Brewer v. Farnam, 50
L.R.A. (N.S.) 312, 208 Mass. 448, 94 N. E.
695.
(Annotated)

§ 188. Grate; coalhole; trapdoor.
Municipal liability, see ante, § 147.
Liability of third persons generally, see
ante, § 157.
Liability of abutting owner generally, see
ante, § 181.
Evidence of conversation between tenant
and one collecting rent, as to repair
ing defective coal hole, see EVIDENCE,
§ 1174 d.

Evidence as to generally, see EVIDENCE, S
1325 d.

Joinder of parties defendant, see PARTIES,
§ 131 b.

a. A property owner who renews a lease
at a time when a grating in the adjoining
sidewalk is in a defective condition is
liable for subsequent injury to a pedestrian
through the giving way of the grating. Mc-
Laughlin v. Kelly, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 305,
230 Pa. 251, 79 Atl. 552.

reasonable care in inspecting and repairing
a grate in a sidewalk in front of his prem
ises does not cease by leasing a part only
of the structure on the abutting land and
its occupation by a tenant, although that
part includes, by implication, the exclusive
right of the tenant to use the grate as a
beneficial appurtenance. Canandaigua v.
Foster, 41 L.R.A. 554, 156 N. Y. 354, 50
N. E. 971.

f. Public policy does not prevent the own-
er of a building who has, with the consent
of the municipal authorities, constructed a
coal hole in the adjoining sidewalk in a
proper manner, from devesting himself of
liability for injuries to pedestrians by its
becoming out of repair by leasing the base-
ment of the building, including the vault
under the sidewalk and the coal hole, which
were constructed for the exclusive benefit
of the basement, and have no connection
with and are of no benefit to any other part
of the building upon condition that the les-
see shall keep the hole in repair. West
Chicago Masonic Asso. v. Cohn, 55 L.R.A.
235, 192 Ill. 210, 61 N. E. 439.

g. The owner of a building who has leased
the cellar, and, pending the completion of
permanent doors which he was to furnish

er has an iron grating
placed over the opening, and employs a
Cutside of the build-
ing, cannot be held liable for injuries sus-
tained by one falling from the street into
such opening while the covering is tem-
porarily removed by some stranger or per-
son not in his employ, which was done when
the watchman's back was turned, as he was
on his rounds. Wasson v. Pettit, 5 L.R.A.
794, 117 N. Y. 118, 22 N. E. 566.

4. Contractors.

189. Generally.
Presumption of negligence in construction
of sidewalk, see EVIDENCE, § 342 c.
Evidence of previous cave-in, see EVIDENCE,
§ 1319 h.

b. A property owner who lets the prop-
erty with a defective coal hole in the side-§
walk is not relieved from liability for in-
jury to pedestrians by falling into it by
the fact that the lessee covenants to yield
up the property in good tenantable repair
in all respects, since, if it required him to
repair this defect, he need not have done
so until just prior to the expiration of the
lease. Hill v. Hayes, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 375,
199 Mass. 411, 85 N. E. 434.

c. A property owner is liable for injury
to a pedestrian on a sidewalk who falls
through a defective coal hole therein, where
he negligently lets the premises with the
hole in such a condition as to be dangerous
to persons lawfully using the highway. Hill
v. Hayes, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 375, 199 Mass.
411, 85 N. E. 434.

d. The owner of a building for the bene-
fit of which trapdoors are placed in the
sidewalk is bound to maintain the doors so
that they will be reasonably safe for pedes-
trians, where he retains control of the
building and its maintenance, although por-
tions of it are let to tenants. Seattle v.
Puget Sound Improv. Co. 12 L.R.A. (N.S.)
949, 47 Wash. 22, 91 Pac. 255.

e. The implied duty of the owner to use

Liability of contractor erecting banner
across street for injury by fall after

work has been accepted, see MASTER
AND SERVANT, § 480 1.

Joint action against city and contractor,
see PARTIES, § 131 c.

Whether negligence of contractor was cause
of injury as question for jury, see
TRIAL, § 70 b.

a. Persons who have contracted to deepen
a railway cut across a highway in accord-
ance with legislative authority are bound
to act reasonably and with due regard for
the rights of persons lawfully using the
highway. Heinmiller v. Winston, 6 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 150, 131 Iowa, 32, 107 N. W. 1102.
b. An independent contractor for the con-
struction of a public drain, who wrongfully
renders a public highway dangerous for
travel by dumping the earth excavated from
the drain thereon, is liable in damages to
a traveler who, without fault on his part,
is injured in consequence of the unlawful

X. Defects; liability for injuries to travelers. b. Liability of others.

obstruction. Solberg v. Schlosser, 30 L.R.A. | undertaken to construct the bridge liable
(N.S.) 1111, 20 N. D. 307, 127 N. W. 91. for injuries caused by the continued ob-
c. Persons appointed or authorized by struction of the street, where there is noth-
law to make or improve a highway are not ing to show that the material could have
answerable for consequential damages, if been procured from any other source any
they act within their jurisdiction, and with quicker. Lund v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co.
care and skill. Home Bldg. & C. Co. v. 61 L.R.A. 506, 31 Wash. 286, 71 Pac. 1032.
Roanoke, 27 L.R.A. 551, 91 Va. 52, 20 S.
E. 895.