Cited by

This court has also upheld a verdict for a pedestrian against an owner of abutting property for injuries resulting from a fall caused by an artificial accumulation of ice on a public sidewalk in Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ; Bannister v. George H. Hurd Realty Co. 131 Minn. 448 , ; Johnson v. Elmborg, 165 Minn. 67 , ; Hansen v. City of Minneapolis, 261 Minn. 568 , 113 N. W. (2d) 508 .

1 We held the city and the owner of a building liable to an injured person who slipped and fell upon an accumulation of ice under almost the same circumstances in Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , .

569; Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ; McCartney v. City of St.

Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ; Bannister v. George H. Hurd Realty Co. 131 Minn. 448 , ; Johnson v. Elmborg, 165 Minn. 67 , .

509; Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , .

*19 We have been referred to Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , , which held that the owner of a leased building was liable to a person injured when he slipped upon ice on the sidewalk in front of it, formed from water which had drained from the roof of the structure through pipes affixed to the house prior to the time of the lease.

Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , .

569, where protruding hinges in a sidewalk trap door were an obstruction or nuisance; Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , , so constructing and main *544 taining drainpipes that the water flowed over the sidewalk rendering passage thereon in freezing weather dangerous; McCartney v. City of St.

(See Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , .)

The foregoing principle does not apply to cases where the abutting owner has diverted water onto the street and thus caused the ice to form on the sidewalk, as in Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ; Bannister v. George H. Hurd Realty Co. 131 Minn. 448 , ; Johnson v. Elmborg, 165 Minn. 67 , .

s in the premises are not secret, but obvious, the tenant takes the risk of their safe occupancy; and the landlord is not liable to him or to any person entering Ainder his title, or who is upon the premises by his invitation, for injuries sustained by reason of the unsafe condition of the premises.” Plaintiff claims that the facts bring the instant casé within the doctrine of Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , , and the cases approving that doctrine.

This apt quotation from Daley v. Towne, supra, disposes of this appeal without much further discussion: “The case at bar is not a case where the landlord covenants to repair and negligently fails to do so (Good v. Von Hamert, 114 Minn. 393 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ); nor a case where the premises are let with a nuisance upon them (Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ); nor a case where *121 the landlord retains general control over passageways, halls and the like, and there is thus

The case at bar is not a case where the landlord covenants to repair and negligently fails to do so (Good v. Von Hemert, 114 Minn. 393 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ); nor a case where the premises are let with a nuisance upon them (Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , ); nor a case where the landlord retains general control over passageways, halls,.

Landru v. Lund, 38 Minn. 538 , ; Ferman v. Lombard Investment Co. 56 Minn. 166 , ; Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397 , .