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 ‘Superior Court’
Delaware County Personal Injury Attorney On Delaware County Personal Injury Hills and Ridges
January 7th, 2010
The hills and ridges doctrine is a defense insurance lawyers use in slip and fall on ice cases. The purpose of the hills and ridges doctrine “is to protect landowners from liability for slippery conditions of which the owner may not have notice or sufficient opportunity to make safe.” Gilligan v. Villanova University, 584 A. 2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 1991.) If a homeowner partially shoveled his sidewalk just hours before plaintiff’s accident, he was obviously on notice of the remaining slippery portion of his sidewalk. Accordingly, the hills and ridges doctrine would not be applicable to this case.
The Superior Court in clarifying this purpose of the doctrine stated, “[t]o require that one’s walks be always free of ice and snow would be to impose an impossible burden in view of the climatic conditions in this hemisphere.” Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, Inc. 704 A. 2d 1085, (Pa. Super. 1997), citing, Wentz v. Pennswood Apartments, 518 A.2d 314, (Pa. Super. 1991.) “Snow and ice upon a pavement create merely transient danger, and the only duty upon the property owner or tenant is to act within a reasonable time after notice to remove it when it is in a dangerous condition.” Gilligan, supra, at 1007. If the homeowner partially shoveled the walk just hours before the accident, finishing the job hardly imposed an impossible burden on him. He obviously had the time to complete the job. He simply neglected to do so. For this reason also, the hills and ridges doctrine is not applicable to this case.
Further, the doctrine of hills and ridges does not apply in a case where there is no evidence that generally slippery conditions prevailed at the time at the time of the accident. See Williams v. Shultz, 429 Pa. 429, 240 A.2d 812 (1968). The Court in Williams, in addition to holding that generally slippery conditions must prevail before the doctrine will apply, further held that because the plaintiff slipped on an isolated patch of ice, the hills and ridges doctrine did not apply.
By: Evan Aidman