Leithman v. Vaught

Citations

• 115 La. 250
• 38 So. 982
• 1905 La. LEXIS 652

Syllabus

<p>LANDLORD AND TENANT — DEFECTIVE BUILDING —INJURY TO TENANT’S SERVANT — LIABILITY OF LANDLORD.</p> <p>1. The roof was in an unsafe condition, owing to the water that had accumulated thereon.</p> <p>2. The evidence shows that there were two feet and six inches of water, in depth, on the roof.</p> <p>3. At least one foot and six inches over the weight the roof could support.</p> <p>4. The strongest roof, not built for the purpose of holding such a weight of water, will not resist under that weight.</p> <p>5. If the lightning struck the roof, and started the fall and collapse, and there was conj eurring consequence of negligence and inevitable accident, the party is liable.</p> <p>G. The likelihood of injurious consequences from stagnant water should have been foreseen.</p> <p>7. On the day of the accident a few inches of water fell — in any event, less than three inches —and from half an inch to an inch of hail.</p> <p>8. There were two outlets to the water from the roof to the gutters, and pipes conducted the water from the gutters to the ground.</p> <p>9. If there was an accumulation of hail and dust at the outlets or in the drains, they could only have stopped the flow of the water on the day of the accident, which was less than three inches. The depth of the water shows'that the stoppage of ■ the flow must have commenced long prior to the storm, and the collapse warrants the inference that the fall was inevitable, and that the force of the water forced the fall of the wall to the outside, in the debris of which plaintiff was caught.</p> <p>10.The testimony shows care and caution on part of owners to avoid accident.</p> <p>The accident happened under circumstances which none the less render them liable.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>