Kinnier v. J. R. M. Adams, Inc.

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in the first case was by Kinnier; in the second case by J. R. M. Adams, Inc. The' facts in each case being the same, it will be simpler to treat them as constituting but-a single appeal. In November, 1920, J. R. M. Adams, Inc., leased from Robert Kinnier* the first floor and cellar of the premises, 121 N. Green Street, in the City of Baltimore. Pbior to that time “Brager of Baltimore” had leased for its own storage purposes the second floor of the same premises.

The month of January, 1921, had quite an amount of cold weather in it, with the result that the pipe which conveyed the water from the cellar to the floors above (four of them) burst as a result of a freezing on the night between January 21st and January 22nd, and on the 22nd, as the result of the bursted pipe,, water came out on to the second floor, which was occupied by Brager for the storage of furniture, then down through the ceiling to the first floor, which had been leased by Adams, Inc., and then on into, the cellar, where it rose to a height of from .six to eight inches. The goods upon the first floor and in the cellar stored there by Adams were various descriptions of hardware, which was much injured, and the- deterioration thus caused resulted in a serious loss to' Adams, Inc., which, as promptly as possible, ³⁰⁷ removed its goods and did everything in its power to minimize the loss, which may nevertheless amount to something over $1,300'. It wasi to recover for the loss thus sustained that suit was brought by Adams, Inc., both against Kinnier, the landlord, and Brager, the tenant of the second floor, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant Brager, and in favor of the plaintiff Adams, Inc., as against Kinnier, the landlord, for the sum of $1,380'. Appeals from the rulings of the court both upon questions of evidence and upon the action of the court upon the prayers by various of the parties to the, suit, explain the fact of the appearance of two cases upon the docket of this Court, both arising out of the same facts.

It does not seem necessary to review in detail each separate ruling of the court upon questions of evidence. One of these was to the method of proof of the damages resulting to Adams, Inc., and which was subsequently in the evidence before the jury from, a different source without objection. It will be sufficient for a disposition of these cases to have clearly in mind the rules of law applicable thereto, together with reference to one or two additional facts not yet alluded to. See 16 R. C. L., title “Landlord and Tenant,” par. 165, and pp. 557, 562 and 563, but under such facts as this case presents the general principles are nowhere better stated than in Tiffany on Landlord and Tenant, volume 1, pp. 641 to 646, where it is said;- “The landlord isi liable for injuries to a tenant, as to any other person rightfully on the premises, caused by the former’s neglect to remedy defects in, or by bis improper management of, appliances of which he retains control.

Accordingly he has been held liable for injuries caused by leakage from water pipes or other plumbing attachments in his control, or by overflow from such attachments, for injuries from defects in, or unskillful management- of, a heating apparatus, an elevator for carrying freight or passengers, a dumbwaiter, and machinery transmitting power. “'Since the landlord is under an obligation to exercise diligence to keep appliances under his control in proper repair, ³⁰⁸ he cannot rid himself of the obligation by delegating the task to an independent contractor. It has been said that he is liable for the negligence of the contractor in such case as if it were his own. But it may he questioned whether the landlord is under an obligation to do more than use reasonable diligence to see