closed generally by a wooden trap-door. Plaintiff was not looking. Held, that defendant was liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff: Barry v. Terkildsen, 72 Cal. 254. § 1160. Objects Falling upon Travelers. Where a person places anything over the highway which may come down and injure passers-by he is held to a strict watchfulness to see that it causes no injury. One is liable for the act of his servant in throwing a keg out of the window of his house upon a passer-by, even though the walk is a private one, and he would not be liable to him for an injury from a defect in it. In an English case the defendant had a lamp and lamp-iron projecting from his premises over the street, and had given orders to a competent contractor to repair it, but the contractor had done the work badly, by reason of which the lamp fell and injured the plaintiff. It was held that the defendant was liable. If the object is placed where it is in violation of law, the party becomes an insurer; as where a swinging sign was placed by the defendant over a sidewalk contrary to a city ordinance, and an extraordinary gale of wind blew it down, he was held responsible for the result. The owner of a building, to the chimney of which a gas company has, without the owner's consent, so affixed a wire as to render the chimney unsafe, and ultimately to cause its fall upon a passer-by, may be liable for the damage so caused. But if he pays the damage, he has an action against the company for indemnity.5 Where persons are building or making repairs near or over the sidewalk of a public street, they must use a proper degree of care to avoid injuring passers-by. They must use safeguards to prevent tools, or timber, or bricks, 1 Tarry v. Ashton, 1 Q. B. Div. 314. Corrigan v. Union Sugar Refinery, 98 Mass. 577; 96 Am. Dec. 685. 3 Tarry v. Ashton, 1 Q. B. Div. 314. + Salisbury v. Herchenroder, 106 Mass. 58; 8 Am. Rep. 354. 5 Gray v. Boston Gas-light Co., 114 6 Clare v. Bank, 1 Sweeny, 539; 3 1 or the like, from falling,' or warn passers-by of the danger, by notices, or in other ways.2 The fact that an object falls and injures a traveler is per se evidence of negligence. The owner of a building adjoining a street or highway being under a legal obligation to take reasonable care that it shall not fall into the street or highway and injure persons lawfully there, in case of injury so caused, it is incumbent upon the owner to show that he has exercised reasonable care, and the absence of such care may be presumed from the fact of the injury. It is not negligence to remove a barricade after all the outside work of a house is completed. Nor is it the duty of a contractor to guard against accidents which cannot be reasonably foreseen; as to put up screens at the windows of a house to prevent the tools of the employees of a subcontractor, who has engaged to do the plastering, from falling out of the windows. And where, under such circumstances, a passer-by was injured by a "straight-edge " of a plasterer falling out of the window, the principal contractor was held not liable. Where the owner of a house has constructed it in a faulty manner, or suffered it to get out of repair so that it is dangerous to the passersby on the street, it is a nuisance, and any person injured thereby may recover damages therefor. Where a city by Hunt". Hoyt, 20 Ill. 544; Jager v. Adams, 123 Mass. 26; 25 Am. Rep. 7. 2 Vanderpool v. Hussen, 28 Barb. 196; Jackson v. Schmidt, 14 La. Ann. 806. Byrne v. Boadle, 2 Hurl. & C. 722; Mullen v. St. John, 57 N. Y. 567; 15 Am. Rep. 530; Clare v. Bank, 1 Sweeny, 539; 3 Jones & S. 26; 8 Jones & S. 104. In an action for an injury caused by the falling of tiles negligently piled, it appearing that they were in the control and custody of defendant, held, not necessary to prove that they were owned by defendant: Palmer r. St. Albans, 56 Vt. 519. Mullen v. St. John, 57 N. Y. 567; 15 Am. Rep. 530. Pearson v. Cox, 2 Com. P. Div. 369. 6 Vincett v. Cook, 4 Hun, 318; Rector of Church of Ascension v. Buckhart, 3 Hill, 193; Regina v. Watts, 1 Salk. 357; Eakin v. Brown, 1 E. D. Smith, 36; Mullen v. St. John, 57 N. Y. 567; 15 Am. Rep. 530; Lowell v. Spaulding, 4 Cush. 277; 50 Am. Dec. 775; Oakham v. Holbrook, 11 Cush. 299; Deford v. State, 30 Md. 179; Whalen v. Gloucester, 4 Hun, 24; Milford v. Holbrook, 9 Allen, 17; 85 Am. Dec. 735; Shipley v. Fifty Associates, 101 Mass. 251; 3 Am. Rep. 346; Hadley v. Taylor, L. R. 1 Com. P. 53; Kearney v. R. R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 759; Welfare v. R. R. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 693. authority of its charter maintains shade-trees on the sidewalks, the owner or occupant of a lot is not impliedly bound to trim them, nor liable for injury to a passer-by from the fall of a neglected rotten limb.1 ILLUSTRATIONS.-A cotton-bale, temporarily set up on a sidewalk, awaiting deposit in a warehouse, fell upon and injured a person. Held, the warehouseman was liable: Maddox v. Cunningham, 68 Ga. 431; 45 Am. Rep. 500. A mechanic employed to put up signs on the second story of a building, on a thoroughfare in a populous city, made use, for that purpose, in a windy day, of a swinging stage that had no rim or other preventive of the sliding off of tools. A hammer fell on the head of a woman passing on the sidewalk underneath. Held, that the mechanic was guilty of gross negligence: Hunt v. Hoyt, 20 Ill. 544. A foot-passenger on a city street sat for a moment on the doorsill of a house fronting on the street to tie his shoe, and there was injured by a brick falling from the dilapidated wall of the house upon his head, which was lines. Held, that the owner of the house was liable: Murray within the street v. McShane, 52 Md. 217; 36 Am. Rep. 367. The owner of adjoining houses with an alley between them leading to a factory suffers the wall of a privy abutting upon the alley to be in bad repair, and the minor child of the tenant of one of the houses, while on his way to the factory for his own amusement, was injured by the wall falling upon him. Held, that the owner was liable: Schilling v. Abernethy, 112 Pa. St. 437; 56 Am. Rep. 320. Plaintiff, an eleven-year-old girl, was injured by a falling brick, as she was walking on the sidewalk by a house which defendants were tearing down. Defendants had placed a barrier across the sidewalk, leaving an opening sufficient for a grown person to enter and pass by the house. Plaintiff went around the barrier, walking in the gutter, and then stepped back upon the sidewalk, when the injury occurred. Held, that it was for the jury to say whether the accident resulted from defendant's negligence in not providing a proper barrier, or plaintiff's negligence in disregarding the one provided: Mauerman v. Siemerts, 71 Mo. 101. Plaintiff while walking on a sidewalk in front of a building which the defendant was erecting was struck and injured by a brick falling therefrom; there were no barriers to prevent the approach of foot-passengers. Held, that the defendant might be liable for the injury on account of the omission to construct barriers, although there was no negligence in suffering the brick to fall: Jager v. Adams, 123 Mass. 26; 25 Am. Rep. 7. Defendant's building and one on an adjoining lot, 1 Weller v. McCormick, 47 N. J. L. 397; 54 Am. Rep. 175. the side walls of which were very near each other, were destroyed by fire, leaving the walls partly standing, with rubbish heaped up to the top of each. Six months afterward, while the plaintiff was removing the wall on the adjoining lot, the defendant's wall fell, injuring him. In the absence of evidence that defendant's wall was dangerous, or would have fallen before the fire or before the removal of the other wall, or that defendant knew or was notified of that removal, or that it was contemplated, held, that an action for such injury could not be maintained: Mahoney v. Libbey, 123 Mass. 20; 25 Am. Rep. 6. § 1161. Snow and Ice on Roofs-On Sidewalks.— One who suffers snow and ice to accumulate on the roof of his house, and to remain there for an unreasonable length of time after notice of it, is liable if the mass slides off and injures a passer-by.1 If one fixes a spout or cornice which gathers water that falls upon his roof, and throws it upon his neighbor's land,2 or upon the sidewalk, so that ice forms there, and a traveler is injured, an action lies. Where there is a statute making a building so erected that its roof overhangs the street an indictable nuisance, and the injury is the direct consequence of the roof being so constructed, then negligence need not be averred or proved. So where the roof of a building is so constructed as to cast snow and ice into the street, it is per se a nuisance, and the owner is liable for any injury produced thereby. The owners and occupiers of premises abutting a street in a city are not responsible to individuals for injuries resulting from a failure to remove from the sidewalk accumulations of snow and ice created by natural causes," although there is a valid ordi Shipley v. Fifty Associates, 101 Mass. 251; 3 Am. Rep. 346; 106 Mass. 194; 8 Am. Rep. 318; Garland v. Towne, 55 N. H. 55. Ás to the liability of the owner where the building is leased, see Leonard v. Storer, 115 Mass. 86; 15 Am. Rep. 76. Reynolds v. Clarke, 2 Ld. Raym. 1399; I Strange, 634; Fay v. Prentice, 1 Com. B. 828; Bellows v. Sackett, 15 Barb. 96. nance requiring them to remove such accumulations. The only liability is to pay the penalty prescribed by the ordinance. The liability to pay damages rests on the municipal corporation charged with the repair of streets.2 ILLUSTRATIONS.- A city charter required lot-owners to keep the sidewalk "in a good and safe condition for use," and made them liable for injuries to any person by "reason of a defective sidewalk." The sidewalk in front of defendants' premises had become smooth and slippery by long use, and some third person, with their knowledge, had painted it, thus increasing its slipperiness. The plaintiff slipped and fell on it, sustaining injury. Held, that defendants were liable: Morton v. Smith, 48 Wis. 265; 33 Am. Rep. 811. § 1162. Telegraph-wires in Streets. A telegraph company which allows its wire to hang so low as to interfere with a vehicle and cause damage is liable. And a wire found in such a condition is evidence of negligence. A telegraph-wire carried from one pole to another is not a dangerous object per se.5 And where a telegraph-pole was broken by a storm, injuring the plaintiff, the company was held not liable. The court said that the company was bound to use reasonable care in the construction and maintenance of its line, and if it appeared that the post was originally not reasonably sufficient, or carelessly permitted to become insufficient by decay, then responsibility attached. But the company was not absolutely bound to have its posts in the streets so strong and secure that they could not be blown down or broken by any storm, nor bound to insure the safety of passengers in the streets from injuries resulting from the falling thereof. The evidence showed that the acci 1 Kirby ". Boylston etc. Ass'n, 14 Gray, 249; 74 Am. Dec. 682; Flynn v. Canton Co., 40 Md. 312; 17 Am. Rep. 603; Moore v. Gadsden, 93 N. Y. 12; Fuchs v. Schmidt, 8 Daly, 317; Taylor v. R. R. Co., 45 Mich. 74; 40 Am. Rep. 457. 2 See post, Division V., Municipal Corporations. 3 Dickey v. Maine Tel. Co., 46 Me. 483; West. Union Tel. Co. v. Eyser, 91 U. S. 495. Thomas v. W. U. Tel. Co., 100 Mass. 156. 5 Wabash etc. R. R. Co. v. Locke, 112 Ind. 404; 2 Am. St. Rep. 193. |