Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

118 Wis. 226

Atwill v. Blatz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1903

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1903-05-29

C. Ludwig, Judge. Appeal from a judgment of nonsuit and for costs. The defendants were the executors of the estate of Valentine Blatz, deceased. The premises in question — a part of said estate — are located at the northwest corner of First avenue and Mineral street, in the city of Milwaukee. A portion of the buildings upon the premises abut on Mineral street. The roof of this portion slopes toward Mineral street.

Relies on Leonard v. Storer · City of Boston v. Gray · Lee v. McLaughlin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1903-05-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1961

3 state decisions

101903191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Siebecker, J.

¶1Mr. Beckman’s possession and occupancy of the addition to the main building on the premises in question, abutting on Mineral street, must be held to cover the addition, with the roof thereon. It appears that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between him and defendants, as executors of said estate, by virtue of the written lease and his occupancy of said addition, at and prior to the time of the accident. His possession of this addition as such lessee *228gave him the control of the roof as well as the interior. As a result of the tenant’s possession and occupancy, he stands in place of the landlord in the management and control of the premises. If legal responsibility is to attach under the facts and circumstances as presented by the record in this case, it would devolve upon the tenant to exercise the reasonable care required to protect travelers on the abutting street from dangers incident to snow and ice accumulating and falling from the roof. Leonard v. Storer, 115 Mass. 86; Boston v. Gray, 144 Mass. 53, 10 N. E. 509; Lee v. McLaughlin, 86 Me. 410, 30 Atl. 65; Wood, Nuisances, § 116; Shearman & Redfield, Negl. § 713. The proof in the record warrants no inference other than that the snow and ice which plaintiff claims fell upon him came from the portion of the structures on the premises which was at the time in the occupancy and control of the tenant. The nonsuit was properly granted.

¶2By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

/118/wis/226 · .json · Public domain