Bleman v. Gold

246 A.2d 376, 431 Pa. 348, 1968 Pa. LEXIS 630
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 3, 1968
DocketAppeal, 395
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 246 A.2d 376 (Bleman v. Gold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bleman v. Gold, 246 A.2d 376, 431 Pa. 348, 1968 Pa. LEXIS 630 (Pa. 1968).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice O’Brien,

Appellant, Howard Bleman, instituted a trespass action for property damage to two adjacent buildings owned by him in the City of Philadelphia. At the conclusion of appellant’s case, the trial judge entered a compulsory nonsuit against appellant and in favor of appellees, Nathan Gold and Shirley Gold. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial judge directed a verdict against appellant and in favor of appellee, City of Philadelphia. The case proceeded to the jury against the appellee, Nate Kaplan, and the jury returned a verdict against appellant and in favor of Nate Kaplan. Appellant’s motions for a new trial, judgment n.o.v., and to take off the nonsuit were refused and judg *351 ments entered on tlie verdicts of the jury; this appeal followed.

Bleman was the owner of two three-story buildings located at 458 and 461 North Fourth Street, Philadelphia, and the Golds were the owners of the adjoining premises at 457 North Fourth Street. The second and third floors of the Bleman property at 459 were connected by a party wall with the Gold property. At the first floor level were a chimney and alleyway, the respective walls of which comprised the first floor side walls of 459 and 457.

Appellant’s evidence disclosed that on June 26,1959, while he was inside his premises at 459, a crash which sounded like an explosion took place. Appellant ran outside and saw bricks piled up in the alleyway. He went into Gold’s property at 457 and saw a large hole four feet high and eight feet wide where the bricks had been blown out of the chimney and alleyway wall at the first floor of 457. Appellant’s experts testified that this so weakened the support for the party wall between 457 and 459 as to cause that wall to collapse on August 4, 1959. Thereafter, on September 11, 1959, while the Philadelphia Gas Company and Visco Brothers were digging in the street, laying gas mains and sewers, the remainder of the properties at both 457 and 459 collapsed completely, apparently doing some damage to 461 in the process.

Appellant’s claim against the Golds was founded on the theory that their negligence in maintaining the property at 457 caused the damage to appellant’s property. Nate Kaplan’s alleged liability was predicated on his alleged negligence in demolishing 457 and 459, damaging 461 in the process. Finally, the City was sought to be held for the entire liability because of its failure to correct or cause to be corrected the hazardous situation on the Golds’ property, and for the dam *352 ages caused by Nate Kaplan on a respondeat superior theory.

The court below nonsuited appellant as to the Golds, holding that appellant had failed to produce the requisite proof with regard to damages. The court directed a verdict in favor of the City on the ground that the evidence clearly revealed Kaplan to be an independent contractor rather than a servant. Finally, the jury’s verdict absolved Kaplan of any negligence.

Appellant urges that the court should not have granted the nonsuit or the directed verdict, and that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence. We agree only with regard to the nonsuit. The jury’s verdict in favor of Nate Kaplan was easily supported by the evidence. There was a conflict of testimony as to the question of negligence, and the credibility issue obviously was resolved in favor of Kaplan. 1

We further agree with the court below that the evidence clearly reveals Kaplan to be an independent contractor, and thus the City could not be held liable on a respondeat superior theory. Moreover, even if the evidence were not so certain, the jury verdict in Kaplan’s favor also would absolve the alleged master, the City. The jury verdict would, in addition, doom what appears to be a late-developing attempt on appellant’s part to predicate liability on the City’s failure to require insurance for the demolition job, asserted to be mandated by the City Charter. If Kaplan was not negligent, the City’s failure to require a bond was of absolutely no consequence.

The City would also be free from any' liability for failure to correct or cause to be corrected the hazardous condition on the Golds’ property. 2 Inspection and *353 demolition of dilapidated buildings are governmental functions under tlie police powers for which the City of Philadelphia is immune from liability. Doughty v. Philadelphia, Rapid Transit Co., 321 Pa. 136, 184 Atl. 93 (1936).

We have indicated above that it was error for the court below to grant the nonsuit in favor of the Golds. The court based its action on appellant’s failure to supply what the court believed to be the proper quantum of proof as to damages. We hold that appellant’s proof of damages was sufficient to avoid the nonsuit. In the first place, the court erred in requiring testimony of the value of the south wall of 459. The value of that wall, as opposed to the value of the entire building, is relevant only if one accepts the view of the trial judge that the damage occurring on September 11, 1959 was not caused by the alleged negligence of the Golds, but by a superseding cause, the Philadelphia Gas Company and Visco Brothers, digging in the street. We set forth the law on this subject in Stark v. Lehigh Foundries, Inc., 388 Pa. 1, 11, 130 A. 2d 123 (1957) : “One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the innocent act of a third party may have contributed to the final result. And when there are two contributing factors, it is not proximity in time that determines which of them is the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Mars v. Meadville Telephone Co., 344 Pa. 29, 31. . . . In determining whether an intervening force is a superseding cause, the Supreme Court in Hendricks v. Pyramid Motor Freight Corp., 328 Pa. 570, 574, stated: ‘The answer to this inquiry depends on whether the (intervening) conduct was so extraordinary as not to have been reasonably foreseeable, or whether it was reasonably to be anticipated.’ Restatement, Torts, sec. 435(2) ; Road- *354 man v. Bellone, 379 Pa. 483, 492, 493; Thornton, Admrx. v. Weaber, Admr., 380 Pa. 590, 595.

“ ‘The question of what is the proximate cause of an accident is almost always one of fact for the jury:’ Ashby v. Phila. Electric Co., [328 Pa. 474], 479; Helmick v. South Union Twp., 323 Pa. 433, 439; Murray v. Pittsburgh Athletic Co., 324 Pa. 486, 493; Restatement, Torts, sec. 447.’ ” Here we can by no means say that appellant’s case as a matter of law revealed the Philadelphia Gas Company and Yisco Brothers to-be a superseding cause. And if there is no superseding cause, then testimony as to the value of all of 459 suffices.

The trial court went on to state in its opinion that even with regard to 459 after the collapse on September 11, 1959, appellant’s evidence as to damages was insufficient, for there was no attempt made to distinguish between the value of the land and the value of the building thereon. However, our reading of appellant’s testimony clearly reveals that he was testifying as to the value of the building alone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sabo v. UPMC Altoona
386 F. Supp. 3d 530 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2019)
Fay v. Thiel College
55 Pa. D. & C.4th 353 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 2001)
Powell v. Drumheller
653 A.2d 619 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Theofilos v. City of Hermitage
4 Pa. D. & C.4th 611 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 1989)
McPeake v. Cannon, Esquire, PC
553 A.2d 439 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)
Snyder v. Harmon
519 A.2d 528 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)
Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, Inc.
465 A.2d 1231 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital Inc.
428 A.2d 765 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
DiSalvatore v. United States
499 F. Supp. 338 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1980)
Ross v. Vereb
392 A.2d 1376 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Amabile v. Auto Kleen Car Wash
376 A.2d 247 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)
Miller v. CHECKER YELLOW CAB CO., ETC.
348 A.2d 128 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Commonwealth National Bank v. Harrisburg Polyclinic Hospital
71 Pa. D. & C.2d 542 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1975)
Noon v. KNAVEL
339 A.2d 545 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Hardy v. Volkswagen of America
65 F.R.D. 359 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1975)
Hargrove v. Frommeyer & Co.
323 A.2d 300 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
FLICKINGER ESTATE v. Ritsky
305 A.2d 40 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
DeMaine v. Brillliart
224 Pa. Super. 243 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.2d 376, 431 Pa. 348, 1968 Pa. LEXIS 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bleman-v-gold-pa-1968.