Study manual

156 
[3] Lane V. Cox, Court of Appeal. 1896. L.R [1897] 1 Q.B. 415. 
The plaintiff must shew that a duty towards him has been 
broken. 
APPEAL from a judgment of nonsuit. 
The defendant was owner of a house which he let unfurnished to a 
weekly tenant. There were no covenants to repair on the part of 
either the landlord or the tenant. The plaintiff was a workman, 
who came upon the premises at the request of the tenant for the 
purpose of moving some furniture. While so employed the 
plaintiff was injured owing to the defective state of the 
staircase in the house. There was evidence that at the time the 
house was let the staircase was in an unsafe condition. The 
plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the 
injuries he had sustained, and it was tried before the Lord 
Chief Justice, who entered a nonsuit. 
The plaintiff appealed. 
E.W. Sinclair Cox (with him F. Lampard), for the plaintiff. The 
defendant let the premises in an unsafe condition and is liable, 
to a stranger who is injured, for misfeasance in so doing: 
Nelson v. Liverpool Brewery Co.
30
Where the defect exists at the 
time of letting the house, the landlord, in order to avoid 
30
. 
(1877) 2 C.P.D. 311. 

---

157 
liability to a stranger who is injured in consequence of the 
defect, must have thrown the duty of repairing upon the tenant. 
[He cited also Payne v. Rogers
31
and Sandford v. Clarke
32
.] 
B.F. Williams, Q.C. (with him F.R.Y. Radcliffe), for the 
defendant. The first proposition laid down by Erle, C.J., in 
Robbins v. Jones
33
covers this case: "A landlord who lets a 
house in a dangerous state, is not liable to the tenant's 
customers or guests for accidents happening during the term; 
for, fraud apart, there is no law against letting a tumbledown 
house". Apart from liability by contract, there is no case of a 
stranger, who is injured owing to the condition of the premises, 
being held to be entitled to recover against the landlord; 
unless the omission of the landlord creates a nuisance, or there 
was a duty arising to persons using a highway, or to an 
adjoining neighbour. Here there was no contract, no nuisance, 
and the landlord owed no duty to the plaintiff; and without the 
existence of a duty he cannot be liable for negligence. [He 
cited Francis v. Cockrell
34
; Le Lievre v. Gould
35
.] 
LORD ESHER, M.R. ... There was no contractual relation between 
the plaintiff and the defendant, and it was not like the case of 
31
. 
(1888) 21 Q.B.D. 398. 
32
. 
(1794) 2 H. B1. 350. 
33
. 
(1863) 15 C.B. (N.S.) 221, at p. 240. 
34
. 
(1870) L.R 5 Q.B. 501. 
35
. 
[1893] 1 Q.B. 491. 

---

158 
a person who keeps a shop to which he intends people to come.
It is said, however, that the defendant was guilty of negligence 
which led to the accident, because he let the house in a 
defective condition. It has been often pointed out that a 
person cannot be held liable for negligence unless he owed some 
duty to the plaintiff and that duty was neglected. There are 
many circumstances that give rise to such a duty; as, for 
instance, in the case of two persons using a highway, where 
proximity imposes a duty on each to take reasonable care not to 
interfere with the other. So if a person has a house near a 
highway, a duty is imposed on him towards persons using the 
highway, and similarly there is a duty to an adjoining owner or 
occupier; and, if by the negligent management of his house he 
causes injury, in either of these cases he is liable. In this 
case the negligence alleged is the letting the house in an 
unsafe condition. It has been held that there is no duty imposed 
on a landlord, by his relation to his tenant, not to let an 
unfurnished house in a dilapidated condition; because the 
condition of the house is the subject of contract between them. 
If there is no duty in such a case to the tenant, there cannot 
be a duty to a stranger. There was, therefore, no duty on the