83. Dice's Adm'r. v. Zweigart's 161 Ky. 646, L. R. A. 1916F, 1155, 171 S. W. 195; Hill v. Day, 108 Me. 467, 1 N. C. C. A. 313, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 971, 81 Atl. 581; Do-menicis v. Fleisher, 195 Mass. 281, 81 N. E. 191; Pinkerton v. Slocumb, 126 Md. 665, 95 Atl. 965; Mesher v. Osborne, 75 Wash. 439, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 917, 134 Pac. 1092.

84. Willson v. Treadwell, 81 Cal. 58, 22 Pac. 304; McCain v.

Form the lessee of defects which were known to him and not apparent to the lessee,85 though in quite a number of decisions a greater liability on his part has been recognized in the case of premises of a public or quasi public nature, he being regarded as under an obligation to use ordinary diligence to see that such premises are, at the time of the lease, in a reasonably safe condition.86

As regards injuries to such persons caused by defects not existing at the time of the lease, while as a general rule the landlord is under no liability,87 this is not the case if the defects result from his negligence in the making of repairs,88 and in those jurisdictions in which the landlord may be subjected to liability to the tenant by reason by his covenant to repair89 he would generally be subjected to liability to one on the premises in right of the tenant.90

Majestic Bldg. Co., 120 La. 306, 45 So. 258; McKenzie v. Cheet-ham, 83 Me. 543, 22 Atl. 469; Phelan v. Fitzpatrick, 188 Mass. 237, 108 Am. St. Rep. 469, 74 N. E. 326; Eyer v. Jordan, 111 Mo. 424, 33 Am. St. Rep. 543, 19 S. W. 1095; Ryan v. Wilson, 87 N. Y. 471, 41 Am. Rep. 384; Burdick v. Cheadle, 26 Ohio St. 393, 20 Am. Rep. 767; Johnson v. Tacoma Cedar Lumber Co., 3 Wash. St. 722, 29 Pac. 451.

85. Metzger v. Schultz, 16 Ind. App. 454, 59 Am. St. Rep. 323, 43 N. E. 886, 45 N. E. 619; Moore v. Parker, 63 Kan. 52, 53 L. R. A. 778, 64 Pac. 975; Coke v. Gut-kese, 80 Ky. 598, 44 Am. Rep. 499; Whitmore v. Orono Pulp & Paper Co., 91 Me. 297, 40 L. R. A. 377, 64 Am. St. Rep. 229, 39 Atl. 1032; Shute v. Bills, 191 Mass. 433, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 965, 114 Am. St. Rep. 631, 78 N. E. 96; Folkman v. Lauer, 244 Pa. 605, 91 Atl. 218; Willcox v. Hines, 100 Tenn. 538, 41 L. R. A. 278, 66 Am. St. Rep. 770, 46 S. W. 297; Anderson v. Hayes, 101 Wis. 538, 70 Am. St. Rep. 930, 77 N. W. 891.

86. Colorado Mortg. & Inv. Co. v. Giacomini, 55 Colo. 540 L. R. A. 1915B, 364, 136 Pac. 1039; Albert v. State, 66 Md. 325, 59 Am. Rep. 159, 7 Atl. 697; Oxford v. Leathe, 165 Mass. 254, 43 N. E. 92; Junkermann v. Tilyou Realty Co., 213 N. Y. 404, L. R. A. 1915F, 700, 108 N. E. 190; Barrett v. Lake Ontario Beach Imp. Co., 174 N. Y. 310, 61 L. R. A. 829, 66 N. E. 968; Eckman v. Atlantic Lodge No. 276, B. P. O. E. 68 N. J. L. 10, 52 Atl. 293; Joyce v. Martin, 15 R. I. 558, 10 Atl. 620.

87. Lane v. Cox (1897) 1 Q. B. 415; Dalton v. Gibson, 192 Mass. 1, 116 Am. St. Rep. 218, 77 N. E. 1035; Eyer v. Jordan, 111 Mo. 424, 33 Am. St. Rep. 543, 19 S. W. 1095; Canandaigua, Village of Trustees of v. Foster, 156 N. Y. 354, 41 L. R. A. 554, 66 Am. St. Rep. 575, 50 N. E. 971; Beaman v. Grooms, 138 Tenn. 320, 197 S. W. 1090; Perez v. Rabaud, 76 Tex. 191, 7 L. R. A. 620, 13 S. W. 177; Beaulac v. Robie, - Vt. -, 102 Atl. 88; Ward v. Hinkleman, 37 Wash. 375, 79 Pac. 956.

- Injuries to strangers. For injuries to strangers, including the owners and occupants of neighboring property, persons temporarily on such property, and persons on a neighboring highway or other public place, the lessor is usually liable, in so far as they are caused by conditions which existed at the time of the making of the lease91 or as they arise from the character of the use of premises made by the tenant, if this use can be regarded as having been intended or contemplated by the lessor,92 while neither he nor his transferee is liable for injuries caused by a condition on the premises arising after the demise,93 nor for injuries caused by the tenant's mode of using the premises, if he cannot be regarded as having connived at or authorized the creation of such conditions or such mode of use.94 It has been quite frequently asserted that the landlord is liable for injuries to strangers caused by defects which would not have continued in existence had the landlord complied with his covenant to make repairs,95 but it is somewhat difficult to discover any satisfactory principle on which to base such a liability.96

88. Barman v. Spencer (Ind.), 49 N. E. 9; Ward v. Blouin, 210 Mass. 140, 96 N. E. 61; But that the landlord is not so liable, see Malone v. Laskey (1907) 2 K. B. 141.

In Massachusetts the distinction has been taken that the landlord is liable to one entering under the tenant if he made the re-• pairs because bound to do so, and not liable if he made them gratuitously. Thomas v. Lane, 221 Mass. 447, L. R. A. 1916F, 1077, 109 N. E. 363; Feeley v. Doyle, 222 Mass. L. R. A. 1916F, 1121, 155, 109 N. E. 902. The basis for the distinction does not clearly appear. See also Hill v. Day, 108 Me. 467, 1 N. C. C. A. 313, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 971, 81 Atl. 581, as to negligence in making gratuitous repairs.

89. Ante Sec. 51 (c) note 77.

90. See Glynn v. Lyceum Theatre Co., 87 Conn. 237, 87 Atl. 796; Sontag v. O'Hare, 73 111. App. 432;

Stillwell's Adm'r v. South Louisville Land Co., 22 Ky. L. Rep. 785, 52 L. R. A. 325, 58 S. W. 696; Campbell v. Portland Sugar Co., 62 Me. 552, 16 Am. Rep. 503, Patten v. Bartlett, 111 Me. 409, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1120; 89 Atl. 375, Thompson v. Clemens, 96 Md. 196, 60 L. R. A. 580, 53 Atl. 919;.Kee-gan v. Heileman Brewing Co., 129 Minn. 496, 152 N. W. 877; Flood v. Pabst Brewing Co., 158 Wis. 626, L. R. A. 1916F 1101, 149 N. W. 489, 158 Wis. 635, 149 N. W. 492; 1 Tiffany, Landlord & Tenant, Sec. 97c.

91. Todd v. Flight, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 377; Tomle v. Hampton, 129 111. 379, 21 N. E. 800; Dalay v. Savage, 145 Mass. 38, 1 Am. St. Rep. 429; 12 N. E. 841; Mylander v. Beimschla, 102 Md. 689, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 316, 62 Atl. 1038, Isham v. Broderick, 89 Minn. 397, 95 N. W. 22; Durant v. Palmer, 29 N. J. L. 544; Davenport v. Ruck-man, 37 N. Y. 568; Knight v.