Witherow v. Tannehill

Citations

• 194 Pa. 21
• 44 A. 1088
• 1899 Pa. LEXIS 717

Syllabus

<p>Damages — Adjoining owners — Destruction of building — Lateral sup- ' port.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages ior the destruction of a house, it appeared that defendants made an excavation on a lot owned by them which was separated from plaintiff’s lot by an intervening lot. During the progress of the work, the walls of Ihe house on the intervening lot settled and cracked, and thereupon defendants purchased this house and lot. As a, result of the excavation or of the removal of the building on the intervening lot, plaintiff’s house was destroyed. The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that the braces at the top of the excavation were of insufficient strength, and that no attempt had beeu made to hold in place the earth at the side near the bottom of the excavation, and that the earth on both lots moved toward the excavation, carrying with it plaintiff’s house at one end, five feet from its original position. Held, (1) that the fact that the excavation was not made on the lot immediately adjoining the plaintiff’s lot would not relieve defendants from liability for negligence, inasmuch as they owned both lots at the time the injury was done; (2) that the distance of plaintiff’s house from the excavation might be considered, in connection with the known nature of the ground, on the question of negligence, but that no distance at which responsibility was to end could be fixed by the court; (8) that the ease was for the jury; (4) that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.</p>