FIRE-ESCAPE. An apparatus construct ed to afford a safe and convenient method of escape from a burning building.
Regulations have been enacted in most of the states, often by municipal ordinances, providing that all factories, hotels, schools, buildings, theatres, hospitals, public build ings, and flat or tenement houses shall be equipped with safe and suitable means of escape in case of fire. Such regulations are of a highly penal character, and are to be strictly construed ; Schott v. Harvey, 105 Pa. 222, 51 Am. Rep. 201; Keely v. O'Conner, 106 Pa. 321; Maker v. Mill & Power Co., 15 R. I. 112, 23 Atl. 63. They are not of such a char acter as to interfere with the use and en joyment of private property ; Fire Depart ment of New York v. Chapman; 10 Daly (N. Y.) 377. They are the subject of a proper police regulation; Roumfort Co. v. Delatey, 230 Pa. 374, 79 Atl. 653.
The original duty to provide fire-escapes rests with the owner or proprietor ; Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310, 34 Am. Rep. 536; and the fact that he has erected them in com pliance with the statute will not exempt him from providing additional ones when or dered so to do ; Fire Deparment of New York v. Chapman, 10 Daly (N. Y.) 377; but in some states it tufa been held that when the owner has leased his premises the tenant in actual occupancy and possession, who places his operatives in a position of danger and enjoys the benefit of their services, be comes responsible under the law ; Schott v. Harvey, 105 Pa. 222, 51 Am. Rep. 201; Keely v. O'Conner, 106 Pa. 321; Lee v. Smith, 42 Ohio St. 458, 51 Am. Rep. 839 ; (contra, Abrayan v. Bank, 16 N. Y. St. Rep. 750.) But these cases seem to place the question of liability more on the ground of the rela tion of master and servant, it being held that as an absolute duty is laid upon the owner by statute, a servant sustaining an injury by breach of such duty may maintain an action ; McAlpin v. Powell, 70 N. Y. 126,
26 Am. Rep. 555 ; Williams v. Tripp, 11 R. I. 451. A building becomes a public nuisance if not .supplied with such appliances as re quired by statute ; 16 Abb. 195. And the mere relation of landlord and tenant will not bar the action ; Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310, 34 Am. Rep. 536. It is not the duty of the tenant to search for defects and re port them to the owner ; id.; nor will the owner be permitted to wait until he is offi cially directed to provide fire-escapes ; id.; McLaughlin v. Armfield, 58 Hun 376, 12 N. Y. Supp. 164; although no such obligation existed at common law; Pauley v. Lantern Co., 131 N. Y. 90, 29 N. E. 999, 15 L. R. A. 194; Jones v. Granite Mills, 126 Mass. 84, 30 Am. Rep. 661.
They must be reasonably secure, although they need not be the best that can be devis ed; Pauley v. Lantern Co., 131 N. Y. 90, 29 N. E. 999, 15 L. R. A. 194; and the number required depends on the size of the building, the number of employees, and the inflamma ble character of the materials there used; Pauley v. Lantern Co., 61 Hun 254, 16 N. Y. Supp. 820; having erected a reasonably safe fire-escape, the owner is not responsible if a fire cuts off access to. it ; Keely v. O'Conner, 106 Pa. 321. See Thomas, Negl. 772; Ray, Neg. Imp. Dut. 660; NEGLIGRNCE.