Carl v. Young

Decided October 1, 1907

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1907-10-01

On exceptions by plaintiff. Tort. The declaration in the plaintiff’s writ is as follows :■ • In a plea of the case for that the said plaintiff on the 3rd inst. was rightfully passing along from Mechanic Row to Main Street in a passageway legally opened and subject to the rights of travellers to pass upon, in the rear of the store and place of business maintained by the defendants,, and while so passing along in the rear of the store of said defendants, without any notice,…

Overruled · Decided 1907-10-01

Emery, C. J.

¶1It is evident that the declaration in this case can be sustained only upon the assumption that the tenant of a building *101is liable for injuries suffered by a passer-by from anything thrown by any person from a window of the building, though neither such tenant nor any of his servants were in fault. There is no allegation in the declaration that the article inflicting the injury was thrown by either of the defendants or any of their servants nor is it stated wherein they were in fault in not preventing the injury.

¶2We think the assumption is without foundation and that in this State such tenant is not bound at his peril to prevent such injuries but only to exercise due care to prevent them. The decisions in the cases cited by the plaintiff were based upon the negligence of the defendant duly alleged and proved; In this case no negligence is even alleged and hence the declaration must be adjudged insufficient.

¶3Exceptions overruled.