## Facts

- William D. Johnson, as committee for Elizabeth Turner (an incompetent person), sought damages for injury to Turner’s warehouse.
- William H. Chapman and Tempest T. Hutchinson owned adjoining warehouse premises separated by a dividing masonry wall associated with their structures.
- The wall was alleged to be defective and unsafe, and the dangerous condition was known or reasonably should have been known to the defendants.
- Either defendant, acting alone, allegedly had the ability to repair or maintain the wall enough to prevent its collapse.
- The wall fell and damaged Turner’s warehouse.
- Johnson sued Chapman and Hutchinson in an action at law, alleging negligent failure to repair or maintain the wall.
- The defendants demurred to the declaration for failure to state a cause of action; the trial court sustained the demurrer and entered judgment for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether a declaration states a cause of action against adjoining property owners for damages to a third party caused by collapse of a defective wall, when each owner had the ability to repair the wall and prevent the injury.
2. Whether lack of exclusive control by any one owner defeats a pleaded duty to use reasonable care to maintain or repair a dangerous structure affecting neighboring property.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the judgment sustaining the demurrer.
- The court held the declaration sufficiently alleged duty, breach, and causation to proceed.
- The cause was remanded for further proceedings with the demurrer overruled.

## Legal Principles

- Property owners with the ability to prevent foreseeable harm from a dangerous condition connected to their premises may owe a duty of reasonable care to neighboring third persons and their property.
- A pleaded duty to repair or maintain a dangerous structure is not defeated merely because another owner also has the ability to repair; overlapping ability to prevent the harm can support liability.
- On demurrer, well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the plaintiff’s favor; if those facts would support liability, the pleading is sufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that where adjoining owners each can repair a defective dividing wall and its dangerous condition makes harm to neighboring property foreseeable, a complaint alleging negligent non-repair states a valid cause of action, so dismissal on demurrer was improper.


Johnson v. Chapman, 43 W. Va. 639, 28 S.E. 744 (1897)