The plaintiff was injured by a shutter falling from a house next to the highway. The house belonged to the owners who were large property owners but was let to a tenant on a weekly tenancy under rent control to a tailor in a small way of business. There was no contractual liability either on the landlord or the tenant to repair, although the landlord had reserved the right to enter the property and do repairs if they thought fit. The plaintiff brought an action against the landlord and the tenant.
Held: The claim succeeded against both.
Goddard J said: ‘What is the principle that determines the liability for nuisance; why is it that prima facie it is the occupier who is liable? In Laugher v Pointer 5 B and C 547, 576; Abbott CJ said: ‘I have the control and management of all that belongs to my land or my house; and it is my fault if I do not so exercise my authority as to prevent injury to another.” and ‘If a landlord lets premises on which he knows that a nuisance exists but takes a covenant from his tenant to put or keep them in repair, no liability remains in him . . but there is no case which precisely covers the present facts, where, neither landlord nor tenant being under covenant to repair, the former reserves the right to enter and do necessary repairs and, knowing that repairs are necessary, fails to do them . . A property owner knows that his house if not repaired must at some time get into a dangerous state: he lets it to a tenant and puts him under no obligation to keep it repaired: it may be the tenant is one who from lack of means could not do any repairs. The landlord has expressly reserved to himself the right to enter and do necessary repairs: why then should he be under no duty to make it safe for passers by when he knows that the property is dangerous? The proximity is there: he has the right to enter and remedy a known danger. Is the injured person to be left in such a case only to a remedy against the tenant, who in this sort of tenancy, which commonly obtains only with regard to small properties, is probably in quite humble circumstances?’
Citations:
[1934] 2 KB 56
Citing:
Cited – Laugher v Pointer 1826
The owner of a carriage hired a pair of horses for a day to draw the carriage. The owner of the horses also provided the driver, by whose negligence a horse belonging to a third party was injured. It appears that the majority of the court held that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.515234