Fry v. Brubaker

Decision Date17 October 1921
Docket Number4-1921
Citation77 Pa.Super. 438
PartiesFry v. Brubaker, Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Argued April 25, 1921

Appeal by South Side Trust Company of Pittsburgh, Committee of the person and estate of Amy E. Brubaker, from judgment of C.P Allegheny County-1918, No. 835, in the case of William A. Fry v. Amy E. Brubaker.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Macfarlane J.

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

Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 500 and judgment thereon. Appeal by committee of the defendant.

Errors assigned were refusal of binding instructions and refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

J. M Shields, and with him Reed, Smith, Shaw & Beal, for appellant. -- The inspector was a mere licensee on the premises and the owner owed him no duty except that of refraining from wilful or affirmative acts of injury Schiffer v. Sauer Co. et al., 238 Pa. 550; Woods v. Lloyd, 16 A. 43.

Joseph R. Conrad, for appellee.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.

OPINION

LINN, J.

Appellant presents two assignments: the first to the refusal of binding instructions; the second to the refusal of judgment n. o. v. The questions of negligence and contributory negligence arising on the evidence were submitted to the jury in a charge of which no complaint is made. The verdict determines that plaintiff's injury was caused by defendant's breach of duty, and as there is evidence to support the verdict, we may not interfere. Our question is whether the law permits recovery.

Defendant's premises in Pittsburgh were used as a tenement house within the provisions of the Act of March 25, 1903, P. L. 54. Section 1 defines a tenement house as " any house or building or portion thereof, which is: (a) intended or designated to be occupied, or (b) leased for occupation, or (c) actually occupied, as a home or residence for three or more families, living in separate apartments, and doing their cooking upon the premises." Section 9 provides: " Every tenement house, and every part thereof, shall be kept in good repair, and shall be clean and free from any accumulations of dirt, filth or garbage, or other matter, in or on the same, or in the yards, courts, passages, areas or alleys connected with or belonging to the same." Section 13 provides: " The Bureau of Health of such cities shall employ one or more special tenement-house inspectors, whose duty it shall be to regularly inspect the tenement houses within the purview of this act, and to see that the requirements therefor are enforced." Plaintiff was such inspector. Complaint was made to the bureau that defendant's tenement house was unsanitary and plaintiff was directed to make the necessary inspection. That required him to go into the cellar. He started down by the stairway provided for the purpose, and while descending, the steps gave way and dropped him to the bottom. He sued to recover for the injury so sustained. There was abundant evidence not only to justify...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Weimer v. Westmoreland Water Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • July 15, 1937
    ... ... American Ice ... Co., 209 Pa. 398, 58 A. 849; Westervelt v ... Dives, 231 Pa. 548, 80 A. 1054; Drake v ... Fenton, 237 Pa. 8, 85 A. 14; Jinks v. Currie, ... 324 Pa. 532, 188 A. 356; Weinschenk v. Phila. Home Made ... Bread Co., 258 Pa. 98, 101 A. 926; Fry v ... Brubaker, 77 Pa.Super. 438 ... Although ... a statute or ordinance may be offered as evidence of ... negligence, it cannot be considered a sole basis of recovery ... Likewise, we think the rules and regulations of the ... Department of Labor and Industry are admissible in evidence; ... it ... ...
  • Wagenbauer v. Schwinn
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1926
    ...It was error for the trial judge to charge that no presumption of negligence arose from the testimony as to unlawful speed: Fry v. Brubaker, 77 Pa.Super. 438; Drake Fenton, 237 Pa. 11; Shaffer v. Mowery, 265 Pa. 300; Stehle v. Machine Co., 225 Pa. 348; Jaras v. Wright, 263 Pa. 486; Rockett ......
  • Mull v. Kerstetter
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • April 20, 1988
    ...burning building was allowed to recover because he fell down an elevator shaft that was unguarded contrary to law. See also Fry v. Brubaker, 1921, 77 Pa.Super. 438 and Dillon v. [Allegheny County] Light Co., 179 Pa. 482, 36 A. 164. It is one thing to say that a fireman who has gone into a d......
  • Philadelphia v. Katz
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • October 7, 1946
    ... ... 272, 275 (1944); A. L. I. Restatement, Torts § 339 ... These duties become greater in the case of nontrespassing ... visitors, whether gratuitous licensees, business guests, or ... persons with a privilege to enter independently of ... possessor's consent. See Fry v. Brubaker, 77 ... Pa.Super 438 (1921) and A. L. I. Restatement, Torts § ... § 341, 345. With respect to all such persons, dangerous ... conditions upon the property may result in the owner being ... liable for damages in the event of injury. Where the property ... is of a nature ... [58 Pa. D. & C ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT