Thorp v. Boudwin

Citations

• 228 Pa. 165
• 77 A. 421
• 1910 Pa. LEXIS 447

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Actions—Parties—Fall of building — Evidence—Opinion —Building inspector — Landlord and tenant.</p> <p>1. Where a person is injured by the collapse of a building, and it is doubtful whether the owner or the tenant is liable for the negligent act which caused the accident, the party injured may sue each party, but if he recovers judgment against both, he can claim only one satisfaction. In a suit against the tenant the latter may show that he was without fault, and that the negligence of the owner was the cause of the accident. Thus he may show that the building condemned was unsafe before he occupied it, that it had been improperly repaired, and that the owner had notice of its defective condition.</p> <p>2. In such a case where the tenant is charged with overloading the floors and thus causing the accident, he may show that at the time of the occurrence the floors were only loaded in the usual way, and that there was no unusual loading on that date to cause the accident.</p> <p>3. In an action by an employee’s wife against the employer to recover damages for the death of her husband caused by the collapse of a building leased by the defendant, the case is for the jury where the plaintiff charges that the accident was caused by the overloading of the floors of the building, and produces one witness who testifies that he was a city building inspector, that he was familiar with the building for several years, that prior to the occupancy bjr the defendant he condemned it and required repairs to be made; and that immediately after the accident he had examined every part of the building, and judging from the broken joists and other conditions was of the opinion that overloading caused the collapse, although he did not know as a fact that the floors had been overloaded.</p>