Robbins v Jones (1863) 15 CB (NS) 221; 143 ER 768; 33 LJCP 1; 10 Jur NS 239; 12 WR 248
Landlord and tenant; duty of landlord to maintain premises during the term
Facts
Houses were erected adjacent to a new road built at a high level to provide access to a bridge over the Thames. Between the houses and the road was a public footway which was covered with flagging. The flagging became weakened and gave way because of the large numbers of people using it, causing Mr Robbins to fall some 30 feet to his death. His widow brought an action against the landlord of the premises for failing to keep it in good repair.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
Mrs Robbins claimed that as the owner of the land, Jones was under a duty to keep the premises in good repair so that members of the public who were lawfully using a public footway could pass in safety. She asserted Jones wrongfully allowed the premises to continue into decay and dilapidation rendering it unsafe for the public to use the footway. Further, knowing the premises to be in an unsafe condition, he demised the premises to tenants, thereby allowing the dangerous state of affairs to continue. Jones claimed he was under no duty to maintain premises which he had let out to tenants. He contended when he was in possession of the premises they were not in a dangerous condition and, Mr Robbins had been trespassing at the time of the accident.
Decision/Outcome
Mrs Robbins’ claim was unsuccessful. On these facts, the footway had become a public highway by dedication, and the defendant was under no duty to keep its surface in repair. The court also stated that, fraud apart, a landlord who lets a house in a dangerous state was not liable to the tenant’s guests or customers for accidents during the tenancy. This did not establish that every tenant must repair the premises: the tenant’s remedy against the landlord, if any, depended on the contract.
