Woodruff v. Bowen
34 N.E. 1113, 22 L.R.A. 198, 136 Ind. 431 (1893)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner generally owes a fireman, who enters the property under a license created by law to extinguish a fire, only the duty to abstain from positive wrongful acts, not the duty to ensure the premises are actively safe from latent defects, unless a specific statute or ordinance imposes such a duty for the benefit of firemen.
Facts:
- Bowen owned a building in Indianapolis, which he had remodeled and enlarged by adding two stories and removing a center wall, concentrating weight on existing foundations without strengthening them, creating an outwardly substantial but internally unsafe structure.
- Bowen leased the building to the Bowen-Merrill Company, which placed a heavy stock of stationery and books inside; Bowen, as president of the company, knew the building was not strong enough to bear this weight, especially with additional strain.
- A fire broke out in Bowen's building.
- Henry D. Woodruff, a city fireman, responded to the alarm and, in the course of his duties and under command of fire department officers, went upon the roof of the building.
- While Woodruff was on the roof, the building's roof and other portions collapsed without warning, precipitating Woodruff and eleven other firemen into the basement, causing Woodruff's death.
- The collapse was due to the building's inherent weakness and the added weight of the stock combined with water used to extinguish the fire, and Woodruff was unaware of the building's unsafe condition, which was concealed by its outward appearance of strength.
- An Indianapolis city ordinance was in effect, prohibiting the maintenance of unsafe structures and requiring owners to make them safe within 12 hours of notice from the chief fire engineer, specifying that walls likely to fall or catch fire were deemed unsafe.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant (representing Henry D. Woodruff’s estate) filed an action in the Marion Circuit Court against the appellee (Bowen) for actionable negligence resulting in the death of Woodruff, seeking damages for the benefit of his widow and children.
- The appellant's complaint consisted of two paragraphs.
- The Marion Circuit Court sustained a demurrer to both paragraphs of the appellant's complaint.
- The appellant appealed the circuit court's ruling, assigning the sustaining of the demurrer as error to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner owe a common law duty of care to a city fireman, who enters the property under a license created by law to extinguish a fire, to ensure the building is structurally safe from latent defects, and does a general municipal ordinance requiring safe buildings create such a duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffey, J.
No, a property owner generally does not owe a common law duty of care to a city fireman, nor did the specific city ordinance create such a duty in this case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the deceased fireman, Henry D. Woodruff, entered Bowen's property not by invitation but under a 'license created by law' due to an 'overruling necessity' to extinguish the fire. Under common law, a landowner owes a mere licensee only the duty to abstain from positive wrongful acts (what the civil law terms 'dolus'), not the duty of active diligence to ensure the premises are safe. A licensee takes the risk of whatever dangers may be present. The complaint did not allege an express or implied invitation by Bowen. The court found no evidence that Bowen committed a 'positive wrongful act' against Woodruff. Furthermore, the court determined that the city ordinance requiring safe buildings was not intended for the benefit of firemen under these circumstances. Instead, the ordinance's purpose was to protect the general public from structures in immediate danger of falling or catching fire, and it included provisions for notice from the chief fire engineer, which implied a focus on obvious and present dangers, not latent structural defects that become critical under extraordinary strain like firefighting. The building, under ordinary circumstances, was reasonably safe for commerce, and Bowen was not bound to anticipate extraordinary events like the combined weight of heavy stock and large quantities of water during a fire.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the legal status of public safety officers, such as firemen and police, when they enter private property during emergencies. It establishes that, absent specific statutory or ordinance provisions, these officials are generally considered licensees rather than invitees, thereby limiting the duty of care owed by property owners. The ruling underscores the principle that landowners are typically not liable for injuries to licensees resulting from the inherent condition of the premises, unless the injury is caused by a positive wrongful act of the owner. This distinction requires careful consideration of legislative intent when interpreting general safety ordinances, holding that such ordinances must specifically aim to protect public officials like firemen to create an enhanced duty of care.
