148 F.Supp. 673 (W.D.Pa. 1957), Civ. A. 15004, Frederick v. Burg

Docket Nº:Civ. A. 15004
Citation:148 F.Supp. 673
Party Name:Frederick v. Burg
Case Date:February 07, 1957
Court:United States District Courts, 3th Circuit

Page 673

148 F.Supp. 673 (W.D.Pa. 1957)

Robert H. FREDERICK and Elsie M. Frederick, his wife, Plaintiffs,


Anchel BURG, Individually and trading as Burg Construction Company, Bernard M. Lee, Norbert Stern and Cizella Stern, his wife, and William Elkind and Sue Elkind, his wife, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 15004.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 7, 1957

Page 674

Ryan, Geer & Bowser, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Robert E. Kline, Arthur Grossman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

McILVAINE, District Judge.

In this case the plaintiffs have brought suit against Anchel Burg and Bernard M. Lee, charging that they caused to be excavated and graded the land now owned by defendants, Norbert Stern, Cizella Stern, William Elkind, and Sue Elkind, but apparently not owned by them at the time of the excavation. The plaintiffs charge that Bernard Lee and Anchel Burg in so excavating, grading, and digging removed the lateral support from plaintiffs' property and caused damage to same. They do not charge that Bernard Lee and Anchel Burg were the agents of the other defendants in this case, but charge that the other defendants since they have purchased the property have not provided any lateral support of their property, and that sliding and washouts along the lines of plaintiffs' property are continuing.

This property is situated in the State of Ohio and plaintiffs and defendants, Stern and Elkind, are adjacent property owners. Defendants, William Elkind and Sue Elkind, have filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim against them upon which relief can be granted. Counsel for the plaintiff has advised the Court by his Brief that a stipulation was entered into with the defendants, Norbert Stern and Cizella Stern, that the decision on this motion would also affect their status as defendants.

The defendants in support of their motion to dismiss rely on the Restatement of the Law of Torts which provides that:

'* * * a person who withdraws the naturally necessary lateral support of land in another's possession, or support which has been substituted for the naturally necessary support, is liable for a subsidence of such land of the other as was naturally dependent upon the support withdrawn, in the absence of a superseding cause or other reason for relieving him.' Restatement, Torts§ 817(1).

In comments explaining the Subsection (1), it is pointed out that:

'The person liable under the rule stated in this Subsection is the actor who withdraws the naturally necessary support. It is immaterial whether in respect to the supporting land the actor be owner, possessor, licensee, or trespasser. The owner or possessor of this land is not liable under the rule stated in this Subsection unless he was an actor in the withdrawal of support.


To continue reading