Brinton v. School District of Shenango Township

• Decision Date: 12 July 1923
• Docket Number: 59-1923
• Citation: Brinton v. School District of Shenango Township, 81 Pa. Super. 456 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1923)
• Parties: Brinton v. The School District of Shenango Township, Appellant
• Writing for the Court: KELLER, J.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

81 Pa.Super. 456

Brinton v. The School District of Shenango Township, Appellant

No. 59-1923

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 12, 1923

Argued April 18, 1923

Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Lawrence Co., Sept. T 1918, No. 40, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of John T Brinton v. The School District of the Township of Shenango.

Trespass to recover damages for destruction of personal property. Before Emery, P. J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $ 425 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were in overruling demurrer and refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

H. A Wilkinson, of Akens & Wilkinson, for appellant.

J. Roy Mercer, and with him George T. Weingartner, Robert K. Aiken and W. Walter Braham, for appellee.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

OPINION

KELLER J.

This case differs from that of Anna C. Brinton against the same defendant, opinion filed this day, [see preceding case], in that there was no contractual relation between this plaintiff and the common defendant. The negligence here alleged is purely tortious and does not grow out of any contractual obligation resting upon the defendant in behalf of the plaintiff. The case, therefore, falls within the general rule of the nonliability of a school district, or other governmental agency, for the negligence of its officers and employees, discussed at some length in the Anna C. Brinton Case, supra, and requires us to sustain the assignments of error.

The case on its facts is almost on all fours with the very late case of Wildoner v. Luzerne County Central Poor District, 267 Pa. 375. There -- the paper-books show -- the owner of timber standing on a tract of land leased by the Jessup heirs to the defendant, as a poor farm, sued for damages which he sustained from the burning of his timber by a fire caused by the negligence of those under the control or direction of the defendant poor district, and it was held that as the defendant was acting as a public agency in the performance of governmental functions, it was not liable for the negligence of its agents, officers or employees. No contractual relations existed between the parties; that is, the poor district was not the plaintiff's tenant. Here, the plaintiff's goods were stored in another part of the building leased by ...