Howard v. Washington Water Power Co.

Citations

• 75 Wash. 255
• 134 P. 927
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1707

Syllabus

<p>Landlord and Tenant — Defective Premises — Negligence — Injury to Tenant — Liability. The rule of caveat emptor does not apply, and tbe landlord is liable as for a tort, without any agreement on his part to repair, where the tenant sustained an electric shock through a defective and uninsulated electric light switch, where the defect was actually known to the landlord and not disclosed or known to the tenant.</p> <p>Same — Liability of Landlord for Defects — Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Question for Jury. Whether a landlord was guilty of negligence in renting property with actual knowledge of a defective light switch, and whether the tenant was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to discover the defect on inspecting the premises, is for the jury, where a former tenant testified that he had notified the landlord’s agent of the defective condition of the electric apparatus and that it had notice of the exposed condition of the switch in question, which was behind the front door, and the evidence was conflicting as to whether the defect was so obscured that it would not be discovered by a prospective tenant in the exercise of reasonable care.</p> <p>Same — Actions—Pleadings—Complaint. In an action for the negligent renting of premises in which there was a defective electric light switch, an allegation that the defendant knew that the switch was exposed and dangerous is fairly inferable from a complaint alleging that the defendant was negligent in causing or permitting the electrical wires to be exposed and unprotected and in failing to give the tenant warning of the condition.</p> <p>Trial — Objections—Waiver. Error cannot be predicated upon the submission of an issue which was fairly inferable from the allegations of the complaint, where there was no objection to the complaint except by general demurrer submitted without argument; and on objection made to the introduction of the evidence in question as outside the issues, the court ruled that it