Fire Department

A dty Is not liable to an employee of the fire department for the negligence of those in charge of that department in furnishing vicious horses, where such employee without knowledge of such viciousuess is injured by the horse; Lynch v. City of North Yakima, 37 Wash. 657, 80 Pac. 79, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 261; nor for Injuries to an engineer of a fire engine due to the gross negligence and Incompetency of the driver; Shanewerk v. City of Ft. Worth, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 271, 32 S. W. 918; nor in sucl a case for injury to one on the street; Higgins v. Superior, 134 Wis. 264, 114 N. W. 490, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 994; nor for injuries to an employee caused by negligence in permitting the hose reel on which he was required to ride to get out of repair; Peterson v. Wilmington, 130 N. C. 76, 40 S. B. 853, 56 L. R. A. 959; nor for the negligence of an employee of the department who, in recklessly moving scales used In weighing coal, injured the plaintiff; Manske v. Milwaukee, 123 Wis. 172, 101 N. W. 377; or of one who caused Injuries whilst practicing with the water tower in the public streets; Frederick v. Columbus, 58 Ohio St. 538, 51 N. E. 35; or by negligently leaving a ladder truck standing so that a ladder projected across the sidewalk; Dodge v. Granger, 17 R. I. 664, 24 Atl. 100, 15 L. R. A. 781, 33 Am. St. Rep. 901; or for frightening a horse by negligently ringing a bell; Saunders v. Ft Madison, 111 la. 102, 82 N. W. 428; or fo-r damaging a stock of goods by water negligently thrown by firemen; Davis v. City of Lebanon, 108 Ky. 088, 57 S. W. 471. FIR E> ESCAPE. An apparatus constructed to afford a safe and convenient method of escape from a burning building. Regulations have been enacted in most of the states, often by municipal ordinances, providing that all factories, hotels, schools, buildings, theatres, hospitals, public buildings, and flat or tenement houses shall be equipped with safe and suitable means of escape in case of fire. Such regulations are of a highly penal character, and are to be strictly construed; Schott v. Harvey, 105 Pa. 222, 51 Am. Rep. 201; Keely v. O’Conner, 106 Pa. 321; Maker v. Mill & Power Co., 15 R. I. 112, 23 Atl. 63. They are not of such a character as to Interfere with the use and enjoyment of private property; Fire Department of New York v. Chapman, 10 Daly (N. Y.) 377. They are the subject of a proper police regulation; Roumfort Co. v. Delaney, 230 Pa. 374, 79 Atl. 653. The original duty to provide fire-escapes rests vsdth the owner or proprietor; Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310, 84 Am. Rep.' 536; and the fact that he has erected them in comdered so to do; Fire Deparment of New York V. Chapman, 10 Daly (N. Y.) 377; but in some states it has been held that when the owner has leased his premises the tenant in actual occupancy and possession, who places his operatives in a position of danger and enjoys the benefit of their services, becomes responsible under the law; Schott v. Harv'ey, 105 Pa. 222, 61 Am. Rep. 201; Keely V. O’Conner, 106 Pa. 321; Lee v. Smith, 42 Ohio St. 468, 61 Am. Rep. 839; (contra, Abrayan v. Bank, 16 N. Y. St. Rep. 750.) But these cases seem to place the question of liability more on the ground of the relation" of master and servant, it being held that as an absolute duty is laid upon the owner by statute, a servant sustaining an Injury by breach of such duty may maintain an action; Mc Alpln v. Powell, 70 N. Y. 126, 20 Am. Rep. 555; Williams v. Tripp, 11 R. I. 451. A building becomes a public nuisance if not supplied with such appliances as required by statute; 16 Abb. 195. And the mere relation of landlord and tenant will not bar the action; Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310, 34 Am. Rep. 536. It is not the duty of the tenant to search for defects and report them to the owner; id.; nor will the ow’ner be permitted to wait until he Is officially directed to provide fire-escapes; id.; Mc Laughlin v. Armfield, 58 Ilun 376, 12 N. Y. Supp. 164; although no such obligation existed at common law; Pauley v. Lantern Co., 131 N. Y. 90, 29 N. E. 999, 15 L. R. A. 194; Jones v. Granite Mills, 120 Mass. 84, 30 Am. Rep. 661. They must be reasonably secure, although they need not be the best that can be devised; Pauley v. Lantern Co., 131 N. Y. 90, 29 N. B. 999, 15 L. R. A. 194; and the number required depends oh the size of the building, the number of employees, and the inflammable character of the materials there used; Pauley v. Lantern Co., 61 Hun 254, 10 N. Y. Supp. 820; having erected a reasonably safe fire-escape, the owner Is not responsible if a fire cuts off access to it; Keely v, O’Conner, 106 Pa. 321. See Thomas, Negl. 772; Ray, Neg. Imp. Dut. 660; Negligence.