Injuries suffered on leased premises present certain difficulties for plaintiffs. “The law is clear that a landlord out of possession is generally not liable for bodily harm sustained on his property by his tenant and those on the premises under his tenant’s right when he is entirely out of possession and control. Craig v. Ryan, 191 A.2d 711, 713 (Pa. Super. 1963)(emphasis added).
Whether a landlord is out of possession or in possession is a fact specific issue. For example, one factor is whether the landlord makes repairs to the property. See Henze v. Texaco, Inc., 508 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Super. 1986); Pierce v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 486 A.2d 1004, 1005, (Pa. Super. 1985). In Pierce, the fact that PHA took care of maintenance and collecting rent created an inference not only of possession and/or control by PHA, but also of responsibility to keep the stairways of the property in good repair.
In all of the cases where the court has determined that the landlord was “out of possession”, there was a lease between the parties. The Superior Court likens a lease to a sale, with responsibility for defects passing to the tenant unless otherwise provided for in lease. Kobylinski v. Hipps, 519 A.2d 488 (Pa. Super. 1986).
Where a contract is silent as to the subject of maintenance of the leased premises, and where the defendant performed needed maintenance during the period of the lease, there arises a “necessary implication” that the defendant had a duty to maintain the premises in good repair and reasonably safe for use by the tenants. McDevitt v. Terminal Warehouse Company, 450 A.2d 991, 998 (Pa. Super. 1982). How much moreso is this true in the case where there is no evidence of a lease at all.
Further, even if it were determined that the landlords were “out of possession”, there are several exceptions to the rule that attach liability to an out of possession landlord. Kobylinski v. Hipps, 519 A.2d 488 (Pa. Super. 1986). For example, liability will attach to an out of possession landlord where the landlord conceals or fails to disclose to the tenant a condition that involves unreasonable risk of physical harm to persons on the property. Id.
By: Evan Aidman
Posts Tagged ‘Defendant’
Why a Personal Injury Attorney Should Handle Your Case?
December 29th, 2009
Personal injury claims are considered one of the most difficult ones to win. These cases are tricky because both the plaintiff and the defendant try their best to outdo each other. More important factor is the quality and competence of the lawyers. An honest and hardworking lawyer can practically swing the case on his client’s side.
Many people make a common mistake of not hiring a personal injury attorney. They think that this would cause a dent in their pocket as lawyers charge a lot of fees. Others are not interested in lawyers because of their apprehensions about the whole legal process. They think that they are better suited to represent their case in the court.
Both these assumptions are wrong. An ordinary person cannot present a case in the court with as much perfection as a lawyer. A common person is not even aware of the technicalities of the judicial system. If you are not aware of the constitution or the penal code then how can you handle it right?
Personal injuries, whether sustained during an accident, street brawl, or in a sporting activity, need a very strong evidence-based case. A personal injury attorney can prepare that case for you. He or she can collect all the information required including photos, medical records, and police statements. He can also assist you in doing this by your own. The legal help and tips will enable you to get all the records quickly and perfectly.
Therefore, if you have decided to file a personal injury claim and think that you can win the case, it is time to hire a professional attorney. Do not waste any time as evidence can wane or vanish and the loss of any evidence can affect your case. You should be careful in hiring an attorney, as not everyone is expert or competent enough to handle these cases.
Try hiring a well-known lawyer that has dealt with many of these cases. Although, you would pay much lower if you hire a novice lawyer, their lack of knowledge can ruin your case. It is not recommendable to save your money on an attorney’s fees and later losing the case in the court. A little more expenditure is good if it can bring good financial returns.
Once you have completed all the procedures and sought the advice of your attorney, petition your case in the personal injury claims court. It should be a well thought out process as any hurried moves, even with legal help, can lead you to trouble. The defendants must have also hired a good lawyer and have prepared their case.
This means that the court fight would be tough and lengthy. They will not accept you evidence nor will concede to paying damages. Only a good lawyer can handle this situation as he can find the weak points in the defendant’s case. He also knows how to win the favours of the judge.
By: Peter Norman
Montgomery County Personal Injury Attorney Talks About Philadelphia Personal Injury Proximate Cause
December 28th, 2009
Proximate cause must be shown in every personal injury claim. Proximate cause exists if a wrongful act was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm. Dudley v. USX Corp., 606 A. 2d 916 (Pa. Super. 1992). Defendant’s negligence need not have been the sole cause of the damage, only a substantial factor. Shippen Tp. v. Portage Tp., 575 A. 2d 157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). Defendant will be liable in negligence for the full amount of damages if defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in producing the injury even though concurrent causes might have contributed to the injury. Monzo v. Com. Dept. of Transportation, 556 A. 2d 493 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Once plaintiff produces facts which lead one to reasonably conclude that defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, the fact that some other cause concurs with the defendant’s negligence in producing the injury does not relieve defendant from liability unless he can show that the other cause would have produced the injury independently of his negligence. City of Philadelphia v. Massantonio, 533 A. 2d 1127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). Defendant’s negligence is not a substantial factor if the harm would have been sustained even if the defendant had not been negligent. Henry v. McCrudden, 575 A. 2d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
Probable cause does not exist if it is “highly extraordinary” that the defendant’s act brought about the harm. White v. Rosenberry, 271 A. 2d 341, 343 (Pa. 1970); Bell v. Irace, 619 A.2d 365, 367 (Pa. Super. 1993). The cutoff for liability comes at “the point in the causal chain when the consequence of the negligent act is no longer reasonably foreseeable”. Id.
By: Evan Aidman