Hill v. Housing Authority of City of Allentown
| Decision Date | 23 March 1953 |
| Citation | 95 A.2d 519,373 Pa. 92 |
| Parties | HILL et al. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF ALLENTOWN. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Action against Housing Authority for damages occasioned by injury to seven-year-old boy who sustained severe burns while searching for junk in dump maintained by the Authority. The Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County at No. 129, January Term, 1949 John H. Diefenderfer, J., entered judgments for the boy and if father, and the Authority appealed. The Supreme Court Nos. 48 and 49, January Term, 1953, Horace Stern, C. J., held that the maintenance of the dump was not a governmental function, and, therefore, the Authority was not excused from liability for its negligence in failing to guard the dump against intrusion of immature children.
Affirmed.
Linn H. Schantz, Allentown, for appellant.
Henry L. Snyder and Snyder, Wert & Wilcox, Allentown, for appellees.
Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY and ARNOLD, JJ.
Of the many questions originally involved in this litigation defendant on the present appeal has eliminated all but one namely: Was the maintenance of a refuse dump by the Housing Authority of the City of Allentown the exercise of a governmental function so as to render the Authority immune from liability for negligence?
The Authority constructed and operated a housing unit known as Hannover Acres, and on premises owned by it immediately adjacent thereto it maintained a dump for the deposit of the ashes and rubbish of its tenants. The dump was quite large, constituting part of an abandoned quarry pit. It was not adequately enclosed by a fence or barrier. The rubbish deposited there consisted of paper, cartons, boxes, tin cans, bottles, glass, furniture, ashes, pieces of iron, newspapers, mattresses, sofas, bicycles, tires, broken wheels and toys; some of it was inflammable and occasionally fires raged on the dump. The children of the tenants were accustomed to play on and around it. One afternoon the minor plaintiff, then 7 years of age, was searching there for junk; his clothing caught on fire and he sustained severe burns about his body which resulted in serious permanent injury. In the present suit brought by his father against the Authority on his behalf, and in his own right, the court, sitting without a jury, found a verdict in favor of the father in the sum of $18,000 and as guardian of his minor son in the sum of $30,000. From the judgments entered on those findings defendant appeals, but, as above stated, it argues as the sole question involved whether it is subject to liability for negligence in view of the nature of the function which it performs as a public agency.
It is undoubtedly true as stated by Mr. Justice Linn in Honaman v. City of Philadelphia, 322 Pa. 535, 537, 185 A. 750, 751, that the distinction in the law determining tort liability of municipal corporations arising out of the exercise, on the one hand, of so-called governmental functions, and, on the other, of corporate or proprietary functions, have long been in a state of confusion and uncertainty. Indeed the decisions on this subject have been more or less arbitrary, and not wholly consistent with one another, perhaps because they have been based primarily on practical considerations of public policy rather than on any principles of logic. What at least is firmly established is, that, in the case of acts of municipalities performed as functions of government delegated by the State to its agencies as public instrumentalities, there is immunity from such liability, whereas in the case of acts of municipalities performed in their proprietary or business capacity the doctrine of respondeat superior applies and liability exists. The real difficulty, however, arises in determining whether, in any given case, the activity in question is governmental or proprietary in its nature.
The Housing Authorities Law of May 28, 1937, P.L. 955, 35 P.S. § 1541 et seq., created Authorities for the proclaimed purpose of providing safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations for persons of low income. The powers granted to them are enumerated at great length in section 10 of the Act, one of which (clause j) is, ‘ To arrange with * * * any county, city or other municipality of the State * * * to cause the services customarily provided by each of them to be rendered for the benefit of such housing authority, or the occupants of any housing projects of the Authority; and * * * to provide and maintain parks * * * sewerage, * * * water, and other municipal facilities adjacent to, or in connection with, housing projects.’ Parallel with this provision is section 4 of the Housing Cooperation Law of May 26, 1937, P.L. 888, which provides that ‘ For the purpose of aiding and cooperating in the * * * operation of housing projects located within the area in which it is authorized to act, any State public body may, upon such terms, with or without consideration, as it may determine * * * cause * * * community facilities * * * to be furnished adjacent to or in connection with housing projects'.35 P.S. § 1584.
From these provisions in regard to the authorized activities of Housing Authorities it is to be noted that, while they are not forbidden to furnish to their tenants ordinary municipal facilities, they are not required to do so but may procure them by arrangement with a county, city or other municipality of the State. While, therefore, a Housing Authority is undoubtedly a public body ‘ exercising public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency thereof’ section 10 of the Act, and accordingly may, perhaps, be regarded as exercising a function of government in providing dwelling accommodations for persons of low income, it does not by any means follow that if it chooses to extend its activities by itself furnishing ancillary services instead of contracting to obtain them from other public bodies of the State it can thereby extend its tort immunity over the field of all such assumed activities by the contention that in furnishing such services it is exercising a governmental function. Here the maintenance of the dump was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial