Engel v. Friend's Hospital (State Report Title: Engel v. Parkway Company)

• Decision Date: 02 July 1970
• Citation: 439 Pa. 559,266 A.2d 685
• Parties: Milton ENGEL, as Executor of the Estate of Maxine Engel and Milton Engel as trustee ad litem for the beneficiaries, Appellant, v. FRIEND'S HOSPITAL and Abraham Freedman, M.D. and Parkway Company.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

266 A.2d 685

439 Pa. 559

Milton ENGEL, as Executor of the Estate of Maxine Engel and Milton Engel as trustee ad litem for the beneficiaries, Appellant, v. FRIEND'S HOSPITAL and Abraham Freedman, M.D. and Parkway Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 2, 1970.

Robert Land, Shuman, Denker & land, Labron K. Shuman Philadelphia, for appellant.

John F. Ledwith, Joseph R. Thompson, Philadelphia, for Parkway Co.

Before BELL C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BELL, Chief Justice.

On May 9 1967, Maxine Engel (decedent) leaped to her death From the roof of '2601 Parkway,' a high-rise apartment building operated by the defendant (appellee) Parkway Company. On November 6, 1968, appellant Milton Engel, husband of the deceased, as executor of decedent's estate and trustee ad litem for the beneficiaries of the estate instituted a suit against Parkway Company, Friends Hospital and Abraham Freedman, M.D., to recover damages resulting from the death of the decedent. Subsequently, Parkway Company filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The lower Court in an Opinion by SPORKIN, J., dated January 5, 1970, sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. From that Order appellant brings this appeal.

Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and judgment on the pleadings have long been considered as in effect identical and ought to be judged by the same standard. London v. Kingsley, 368 Pa. 109, 81 A.2d 870. In both cases 'it is hornbook law that all the facts which are well pleaded by the adversary, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom are admitted, but conclusions therefrom and averments of law are not admitted: Robinson v. Philadelphia, Pa., 161 A.2d 1; Fawcett v. Monongahela Railway Co., 391 Pa. 134, 137 A.2d 768.' Bednarowicz v. Vetrone, 400 Pa. 385, 387--388, 162 A.2d 687, 688. See also City of Philadelphia v. Penn Plastering Corp., 434 Pa. 122, 253 A.2d 247; Aughenbaugh v. North American Refractories Co., 426 Pa. 211, 231 A.2d 173. Preliminary objections which result in dismissal of a plaintiff's suit should be sustained only in cases which are clear and free from doubt. Conrad v. Pittsburgh, 421 Pa. 492, 218 A.2d 906; Hyam v. Upper Montgomery Joint Authority, 399 Pa. 446, 160 A.2d 539.

The relevant allegations of the complaint are as follows:

Parkway Company negligently maintained a dangerous condition by allowing the use of the roof of the building to anyone granted access into the building instead of restricting the use of the roof to tenants and their guests; Parkway Company further failed to lock the doors leading to the roof areas and to fence in the roof area, having had knowledge of prior suicides and attempts; decedent, by reason of an infantile mind and strong suicidal tendencies, did not appreciate the danger of the condition of the defendant's premises. The lower Court found these allegations...