Lane v Cox

Overview | [1897] 1 QB 415, | 66 LJQB 193, | 45 WR 261, | [1895-9] All ER Rep 337, | 41 Sol Jo
142, | 76 LT 135, | 13 TLR 142

Lane v Cox [1895-99] All ER Rep 337

Also reported: [1897] 1 QB 415 ; 66 LJQB 193; 76 LT 135; 45 WR 261; 13 TLR 142; 41 Sol Jo 142
COURT OF APPEAL
LORD ESHER MR, LOPES AND RIGBY LJJ
11, 19 DECEMBER 1896

Landlord and Tenant — Liability of landlord — House let in dangerous condition — No contract to keep in
repair — Injury to third party due to condition of premises.

A landlord who, in the absence of an agreement by him, express or implied, that he will keep the demised
premises in repair, lets the premises in a dangerous or unsafe condition is not liable to his tenant, or to the
tenant's customers, guests or employees, for accidents occurring in consequence of the dangerous condition of
the premises.
Robbins v Jones (1) (1863) 15 CBNS 221, applied.

Notes
The Occupier's Liability Act, 1957 (37 HALSBURY'S STATUTES (2nd Edn) 832) only affects a landlord's liability
in virtue of obligation to repair and does not affect a case in which there is no obligation to repair.
Considered: Cavalier v Pope, [1906] AC 428; Bottomley v Bannister,[1931] All ER Rep 99; Wilchick v Marks,
[1934] All ER Rep 73; Shirvell v Hackwood Estates Co, [1938] 2 All ER 1; Howard v Walker, [1947] 2 All ER 197.
Referred to: Otto v Bolton and Norris,[1936] 1 All ER 960.
As to a landlord's liability to third persons, see 23 HALSBURY'S LAWS (3rd Edn) 570 et seq; and for cases see
31 DIGEST (Repl) 194 et seq; and 384 et seq.

Cases referred to:

(1) Robbins v Jones (1863) 15 CBNS 221; 3 New Rep 85; 33 LJCP, 1; 9 LT 523; 12 WR 248; 148 ER 768; sub
nom Robins v Jones, 10 Jur NS 239; 31 Digest (Repl) 385, 5114.
(2) Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503; 52 LJQB 702; 49 LT 357; 47 JP 709; 27 Sol Jo 667, CA; 36 Digest
(Repl) 7, 10.
(3) Le Lievre v Gould, [1893] 1 QB 491; 62 LJQB 353; 68 LT 626; 57 JP 484; 41 WR 468; 37 Sol Jo 267; 4 R
274; sub nom Dennes v Gould, 9 TLR 243, CA; 36 Digest (Repl) 9, 27.
Also referred to in argument:
 Lane v Cox [1895-99] All ER Rep 337, [1895-99] All ER Rep 337

Nelson v Liverpool Brewery Co (1877) 2 CPD 311; 46 LJQB 675; 25 WR 877; 31 Digest (Repl) 380, 5083.
Gwinnell v Eamer (1875) LR 10 CP 658; 32 LT 835, DC; 31 Digest (Repl) 382, 5097.

[1895-99] All ER Rep 337 at 338

Gandy v Jubber (1865) 5 B & S 485; 9 B & S 15; 29 JP 645; 13 WR 1022; 122 ER 911, Ex Ch.
Todd v Flight (1860) 9 CBNS 377; 30 LJCP 21; 3 LT 325; 7 Jur NS 291; 9 WR 145; 142 ER 148; 31 Digest
(Repl) 381, 5094.
Payne v Rogers (1794) 2 Hy Bl 350; 126 ER 590; 31 Digest (Repl) 380, 5081.
Sandford v Clarke (1888) 21 QBD 398; 57 LJQB 507; 59 LT 226; 52 JP 773; 37 WR 28, DC; 31 Digest (Repl)
382, 5099.
Bowen v Anderson, [1894] 1 QB 164; 58 JP 213; 42 WR 236; 38 Sol Jo 131; 10 R 47, DC; 31 Digest (Repl) 382,
5100.
Francis v Cockrell (1870) LR 5 QB 501; 10 B & S 950; 39 LJQB 291; 23 LT 466; 18 WR 1205, Ex Ch; 34 Digest
166, 1296.

Application by the plaintiff for judgment or for a new trial on appeal from the verdict and judgment at the trial before
LORD RUSSELL, CJ, with a jury in Middlesex.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries which he had sustained. The defendant
was the landlord of a house, which had been recently built, and was let to a weekly tenant. The landlord had not
agreed to do any repairs. The plaintiff was employed by the tenant to remove some furniture from the house, and
while he was removing the furniture he was injured by reason of a staircase within the house giving way beneath
him. At the trial evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff that the staircase was defective and unsafe in its
construction, and that it was so at the time when the house was let by the defendant. The action was tried before
LORD RUSSELL, CJ, and a jury, and the learned judge held that there was no case to go to the jury, and directed a
verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

EW Sinclair Cox and F Lampard for the plaintiff.

Francis Williams, QC, and FRY Radcliffe for the defendant.

Cur adv vult

19 DECEMBER 1896

LORD ESHER MR:

In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant, the owner of a house, to recover damages for injuries sustained by him
owing to the defective condition of the staircase of the house. At the trial the Lord Chief Justice held that the plaintiff
had not made out any case, and directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed, and asks for a new
trial.

The evidence showed that the defendant was the owner of the house, but that it was let to a tenant who was in
possession at the time when the accident happened to the plaintiff. There was also evidence that at the time when
the house was let to the tenant, the staircase was in an unsafe condition, and that the defeat then existed owing to
which the plaintiff was afterwards injured. The plaintiff had gone into the house at the request of the tenant in order
 Lane v Cox [1895-99] All ER Rep 337, [1895-99] All ER Rep 337

to remove the tenant's furniture, and while so doing was injured owing to the defective condition of the staircase.
The question we have now to decide is whether the defendant can be made liable under such circumstances for the
injuries caused to the plaintiff. There was not any contractual relation between the plaintiff and the defendant. This
case is not like that of a person who keeps a shop and intends and invites people to enter, It has been argued,
however, that there was negligence on the part of the defendant which caused the injury to the plaintiff, because he
had let the house in an unsafe condition. It has been held that one person cannot be made liable to another far
negligence unless there is some relation between them which gives rise to a duty towards the person injured, which
has been neglected. Such a relation arises under many circumstances, as was pointed out in Heaven v Pender (2)
and Le Lievre v Gould (3). Was there, in this case, any duty owing by the defendant towards the plaintiff? It has
been pointed out in the previous cases that persons who are upon a highway have the duty imposed upon them to
take reasonable care not to interfere with

[1895-99] All ER Rep 337 at 339

each other. So also, if a man has a house adjoining a highway, a duty towards the persons using the highway is
imposed upon him; and also a man owes a duty towards his next-door neighbour. In such cases he is liable, if by
negligently managing his house or allowing it to be unsafe, he causes injury to persons using the highway or to his
neighbour. In the present case the negligence alleged is that the defendant let his house to a tenant in an unsafe
condition. It has been held that no duty is imposed upon a landlord, as between him and his tenant not to let his
house in a dilapidated condition, apart from a special contract. If, in such case there is no duty towards the tenant,
there cannot be any duty towards a stranger. There was, therefore, in this case no duty owing by the defendant to
the plaintiff, and consequently there could be no liability for negligence. The ruling of the Lord Chief Justice was
right, and this appeal must be dismissed.

LOPES LJ:

I am of the same opinion. The plaintiff in this case complains of a defect in the staircase of a house belonging to the
defendant, and let by him to a tenant. It is contended that the landlord is liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff,
a workman employed by the tenant. The rule is that neither the landlord nor the tenant is liable to put into repair, or
to repair, the demised premises unless such a liability is created by a contract between them. There is no implied
contract between them in this respect. A landlord who lets his house in a dangerous or unsafe condition is not liable
to the tenant, or to his tenant's customers or guests, for accidents happening during the term, unless he has
contracted to keep the premises in repair. In this case, then, there was no liability arising out of any contract. It is
argued, however, that the claim may be based upon the negligence of the defendant. There is no liability for
negligence unless there is a breach of some duty. No duty in a case like this exists even towards the tenant, and
therefore note can exist towards strangers. A case like this is entirely different from the case in which, by reason of
the dangerous condition of premises, injury is caused to persons on the highway, or to the occupier of adjoining
property. I think that the Lord Chief Justice was right in holding that the plaintiff had no cue, and this appeal must be
dismissed.

RIGBY LJ:

I entirely agree. I desire only to add that the liability of a landlord for letting premises in a dangerous condition is not
limited to cases of public nuisances, but extends to cases where the injury is caused upon adjoining property. As to
the question in the present case, I accept the proposition of ERLE, CJ, in Robbins v Jones (1) where he said (15
CBNS at p 240):
“A landlord who lets a house in a dangerous state, is not liable to the tenant's customers or guests for accidents' happening
during the term; for, fraud apart, there is no law against letting a tumble-down house, and the tenant's remedy is upon his
contract, if any.”
I agree that the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
 Lane v Cox [1895-99] All ER Rep 337, [1895-99] All ER Rep 337

Reported by JH WILLIAMS, ESQ, Barrister-at-Law.

End of Document