Johnson v. Snow
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. Dcm~ iél G. Taylor, Judge. (1) The terms of statute make the fire escape a part of the building itself. It is therefore the duty of the owner to erect it where necessary. Under similar statutes the courts have held that it was the duty of the owner or owners to erect the fire escapes — even where the building was leased in its entirely for a term of years.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. Dcm~ iél G. Taylor, Judge. (1) The terms of statute make the fire escape a part of the building itself. It is therefore the duty of the owner to erect it where necessary. Under similar statutes the courts have held that it was the duty of the owner or owners to erect the fire escapes — even where the building was leased in its entirely for a term of years. Landgra-f v. Kuh, 188 HI. 490; Abraham v. Bank, 16 N. Y. St. 750; McLaughlin v. Armfield, 58 Hun 376; Weily v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310; Pauly v. Steam Gauge and Lantern Company, 131 N. Y. 90;…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating tire facts as above).— The appeal presents but one question for discussion and solution, viz., whether or not defendants, under the evidence, were obliged by the Act of 1901 to attach an exterior fire escape to the building. The act is as follows :
‘ ‘ Section 1. It shall be the duty of the owner, proprietor, lessee or keeper of every hotel, boarding and lodging house, school house, opera house, theater, music hall, factory office building in the State of Missouri, and every building therein where people congregate or which is used as a business place, or for public or private…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Willy v. . MulledyNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Pauley v. Steam Gauge & Lantern Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- McAlpin v. . PowellNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Ward v. FaginSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Camp v. RogersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Glenn R. Sewell Sheet Metal, Inc. v. LoverdeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Moore v. Dresden Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1931
- Taylor v. GunnTennessee Supreme Court · 1950
- Olin v. HonsteadIdaho Supreme Court · 1939