Schetter v. Housing Authority of the City of Erie

132 F. Supp. 149, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3001
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 13, 1955
DocketCiv. A. 338
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 132 F. Supp. 149 (Schetter v. Housing Authority of the City of Erie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schetter v. Housing Authority of the City of Erie, 132 F. Supp. 149, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3001 (W.D. Pa. 1955).

Opinion

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

In this Federal Tort Claims proceeding the United States of America has filed the following motions:

1. To dismiss the complaint as to the United States.

2. To dismiss the complaint as to the Public Housing Administration.

3. To dismiss the complaint as to the Housing Authority of the City of Erie.

4. To make the Housing Authority of the City of Erie a third-party defendant.

5. To strike demand for jury trial.

Briefly summarized, the complaint sets forth that Fred Schetter and Ruth E. Schetter, his wife, together with their two children, Nancy and Frederick, were tenants in the Delaware Plan Housing Project, in the City of Erie, Pennsylvania. That an explosion of a hot water tank' occurred with resulting destruction and fire in their apartment, which resulted in the death of the two children, Nancy and Frederick. That the units were constructed by the Public Housing Administration, a Federal Agency, that the project was operated under an agreement, designated as a lease for the Public Housing Administration by the Housing Authority of the City of Erie, and that the death of said two children was caused by the negligence of the United States through the Public Housing Administration and the Housing Authority of the City of Erie in the maintenance, operation, supervision and repair of the hot water tank in the Schetter dwelling unit.

To simplify reference to the divers parties in the action, they will be identified as follows:

Delaware Plan Housing Project— Project

Federal- Public Housing Administration — United States

*151 Housing Authority of the City of Erie — Erie

Fred Schetter, Administrator of the Estates of Nancy Schetter and Frederick Schetter, deceased, — Schetter

Motion to Dismiss Complaint as to United States

United States contends that the terms of an instrument executed between itself and Erie is a lease. That Erie is an independent contractor and that the terms of said agreement relieve United States of any liability under any circumstances.

However, a careful reading of the legal instrument and its interpretation under Pennsylvania law requires the conclusion that the instrument is not a lease nor does Erie fall within the legal framework of an independent contractor. The terms of the instrument which require this conclusion, inter alia, are:

(a) The project shall be operated by Erie in accordance with the budget approved by the United States, and all budgets relative to the management, operation and maintenance, and administration expenses of each project shall be submitted for the approval of the United States on forms furnished by the United States.

(b) Erie shall pay no taxes nor make any payments in lieu of taxes with respect to the project. The United States will make all payments in lieu of taxes in -accordance with provisions of applicable law and will notify Erie of the amount of such payments as they are made.

(c) Erie shall provide all personnel, supplies and services to properly manage, operate, maintain and administer the project; shall select tenants in accordance with regulations prescribed by the United States; shall charge and collect rentals as prescribed by the United States; shall select the principal management personnel in a manner determined by the United States, and Erie shall pay wages and the terms of employment shall be approved by the United States.

(d) Erie shall deposit all income from the project in the name of Erie in a bank approved by the United States, and no withdrawals shall be made from said account to pay expenses incident to the project which are not within the terms of the budget approved by the United States. Erie shall maintain a petty cash account not to exceed $300.00.

(e) Erie shall keep and maintain complete records relative to the management, operation, maintenance and administration of the project on forms prescribed by the United States, and all such records are subject to the inspection of the United States at all times during regular business hours of the project of Erie.

(f) If Erie shall maintain the project in good repair, order and condition suitable to the purposes thereof, to the extent that funds for such purpose are available from the income of the project and within the budget as approved by the United States. No major repairs or improvements shall be made by Erie without prior written approval of the United States.

(g) Each employee or agent of Erie whose duties include the receiving or disbursing of funds shall furnish a bond approved by the United States. Erie shall obtain public liability insurance, satisfactory to the United States, to protect Erie against litigation and loss arising out of injury or death to any person in any one accident in the amount of $50,000 and against litigation and loss arising out of injury or death to more than one person from any one accident in the amount of $100,000, or in such other amounts as may be approved by the United States. Appropriate insurance coverage shall be secured to protect Erie against liability for the payment of workmen’s compensation and employers’ liability with insurers satisfactory to the United States, and Erie shall obtain such other insurance as is deemed necessary by the United States for the proper operation of the project. The insurance shall be obtained by Erie and certified copies of the policies shall be furnished to the *152 United States, and should Erie fail or neglect to renew insurance coverage during the life of the agreement between United States and Erie, United States may obtain same direct.

(h) At the termination of the agreement, Erie is required to surrender to United States the premises in the same condition as when Erie assumed possession, subject to ordinary wear and tear and loss, and to deliver and transfer to the United States all assets regardless of their nature.

(i) Erie shall not assign a mortgage nor pledge the lease or any interest therein without the prior consent of United States.

(j) United States agrees to provide Erie with the necessary funds to meet all expenses in managing, operating and administering the project for the reason that the project is to be operated without profit or loss to Erie, and if any funds so advanced are not necessary, the balance of said funds shall be returned by Erie to the United States.

(k) United States has the right to sell or dispose of any part of the project without the consent of Erie, in which event the agreement may be terminated.

In view of the foregoing provisions of the lease, justice requires the piercing of the veil which shrouds the relationship between Erie and the United States. The mere fact that the Public Housing Administration, an arm of the United States, delegated its authority to Erie in lieu of acting directly under the attempted form of a lease, does not change or permit the evasion of responsibility.

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

Related

Estate of Nobile v. United States
193 F.R.D. 58 (D. Connecticut, 2000)
Hamm v. Nasatka Barriers Inc.
166 F.R.D. 1 (District of Columbia, 1996)
Garcia v. United States
896 F. Supp. 467 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1995)
Dumansky v. United States
486 F. Supp. 1078 (D. New Jersey, 1980)
Birnbaum v. United States
436 F. Supp. 967 (E.D. New York, 1977)
Furrer v. Talent Irrigation District
466 P.2d 605 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1970)
Williams v. United States
405 F.2d 951 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)
Gurzo v. GREGORY PARK, ETC.
240 A.2d 25 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)
Williams v. United States
42 F.R.D. 609 (S.D. New York, 1967)
Poston v. United States
262 F. Supp. 22 (D. Hawaii, 1966)
United States v. Delta Industries, Inc.
275 F. Supp. 934 (N.D. Ohio, 1966)
Commissioner of Labor & Industries v. Boston Housing Authority
188 N.E.2d 150 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1963)
Handley v. Tecon Corporation
172 F. Supp. 565 (N.D. New York, 1959)
Fong v. United States
21 F.R.D. 385 (N.D. California, 1957)
Lomax Ex Rel. Lomax v. United States
155 F. Supp. 354 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1957)
Honeycutt v. United States
19 F.R.D. 229 (W.D. Louisiana, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 F. Supp. 149, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schetter-v-housing-authority-of-the-city-of-erie-pawd-1955.