Wilson v. Lamberton
| Decision Date | 24 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 6821.,6821. |
| Citation | 102 F.2d 506 |
| Parties | WILSON v. LAMBERTON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Albert L. Hood, Jr., Paul Freeman, and Freeman, Fox & Steeble, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Frank B. Gummey, 2nd, and Thomas J. Clary, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Charles B. Costello, of Philadelphia, Pa., for additional appellee Leo W. McCormick.
Before BIGGS and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and KALODNER, District Judge.
The court below sustained appellee's demurrer to appellant's statement of claim in trespass; discharged appellant's rule for leave to file an amended statement of claim, and entered judgment for the appellee. This appeal followed.
Appellant was a guest in a dwelling house in Pennsylvania, leased by the owner, the appellee, to a tenant. The appellant was injured when a porch railing attached to the dwelling gave way when she leaned against it, causing her to fall.
The statement of claim alleges negligence upon the part of the owner in that the owner leased the premises under such circumstances that the owner should have known that the railing was in a weakened condition and in need of repair. These circumstances are that the owner had previously repaired another portion of the same railing.
An affidavit of defense raising questions of law was filed by the appellee, and the court below sustained the demurrer on the following grounds:
(a) Under the Pennsylvania Law the rights of a guest against an owner of leased premises rise no higher than the rights of the tenant.
(b) There is no liability in favor of tenant against the landlord arising out of dangerous conditions, if the tenant knows of the defects or can ascertain them by reasonable inspection.
(c) The statement of claim does not allege that the landlord knew of the dangerous condition. It merely alleges that he should have known of the defects. This is insufficient pleading.
(d) To support a claim against the landlord, the defect must be a latent one, not reasonably discoverable by the tenant. Obviously, if the railing gave way under slight pressure, it was a defect which would have been discovered easily by reasonable inspection.
After the demurrer was sustained, the appellant filed what she called a petition to "amend the decree." The prayer of the petition, however, was for leave to file an amended statement of claim. This petition set forth the facts in greater detail.
It averred that the railing in question bordered the porch as well as the steps leading to the porch, and that the step railing had been repaired but that the porch railing had been left unrepaired. Another averment was that the two railings were alike in appearance. It was further averred that the owner of the premises actually knew of the unsafe condition of the porch railing, and that "if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Waddell v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
-
Rannels v. S. E. Nichols, Inc.
...liberally in permitting amendments, so as not to deprive a litigant of a chance to bring his case to trial." Wilson v. Lamberton, 102 F.2d 506, 507 (3d Cir. 1939). ...
-
Fierstein v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, Civ. A. No. 2974.
...to permit amendments liberally, and to avoid if possible depriving a litigant of a chance to bring his case to trial. Wilson v. Lamberton, 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 506; Moore v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., D.C.S. D.Miss., 24 F.Supp. 731; Kuenzel v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co. Inc., D.C.......
-
Stephens v. Reed
...an abuse of discretion. There can be no abuse when what is refused would avail the offeror nothing if allowed. See Wilson v. Lamberton et al., 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 506, 507. The same may be said for the defendant's offer to amend so as to show why the title which Herran held for the bank as its......