Case Name: Coradi, Appellant, v. Sterling Oil Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1954-05-24
Citations: 378 Pa. 68
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 259
Parties: Coradi, Appellant, v. Sterling Oil Company.
Judges: Before Stern, C. J., Stearns, Jones, Bell, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 378
Pages: 68–77

Head Matter:
Coradi, Appellant, v. Sterling Oil Company.
May 24, 1954:
Argued March 30, 1954.
Before Stern, C. J., Stearns, Jones, Bell, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
Kenneth W. Rice, for appellant.
Stuart A. Culbertson, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell,
Plaintiff brought an action in trespass for damages sustained by him when a pole against which he had placed his ladder, broke, and he fell to the ground and was injured. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment non obstante veredicto and on such an appeal plaintiff is entitled to all the evidence which is most favorable to him, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom; and if there be any conflicts in the testi mony such conflicts must be resolved in his favor: Lanni v. P. R. R., 371 Pa. 106, 88 A. 2d 887; Shaw v. P. R. R., 374 Pa. 8, 10, 96 A. 2d 923. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, he is entitled to the benefit of the following facts:
On December 19, 1949, plaintiff was employed at a service station which since 1941 had been operated by defendant's lessees, Hart & Eiseman, under a lease with defendant. Lessees wished to decorate the premises and especially a light on top of a 12 foot high steel pole. The pole was erected on a concrete island in the driveway between three gasoline pumps which were also on this tiny island. Steel flanges were welded on the bottom of the pole; the bottom of the pole was then affixed to these metal flanges which in turn were bolted to the concrete island; then a small cap or bell-shaped housing was placed over the bottom of the pole, which covered up the flanges and the bolts. A light to illuminate the gas pumps was placed on top of the pole. This pole had been there for 15 years and plaintiff and his employers daily worked around it and often leaned against it. Prior to the accident, no one had ever seen anything the matter with the pole; after the accident, the pole was found to be badly rusted on the inside and this created a dangerous condition. No outside or reasonable inspection would have disclosed this rusted or dangerous condition, but it could have been discovered only by lifting the small cap or bell-shaped housing which covered the bottom of the pole as well as the flanges and the bolts, and then tapping the pole with a hammer.
Lessees, under the terms of this lease, agreed to repair and maintain the premises and to save the lessor harmless "from any liability by reason of any personal injuries to any person on or about the said premises and the lessees further agree that they will assume all liability and damages which may arise from any damages that may occur either on or in front of said premises." Nevertheless, plaintiff sued the lessor and not the lessees, and proved that defendant from time to time had voluntarily entered upon the premises and repaired damaged pumps and equipment and painted the inside and outside of the station as well as the pole. However, it is important to note that no evidence was produced by plaintiff to show that any repairs were ever made by defendant to the pole;, the most defendant did was to have the pole painted several times, including one time three months prior to the accident. Plaintiff proved by a so-called practical expert witness that such a steel pole is likely to oxidize and rust on the inside, and may last 3 years or 75 years, depending upon the kind of steel, the climate, and atmospheric conditions.
Plaintiff seeks to bring himself within the well established principle that a landlord out of possession who gratuitously and voluntarily undertakes to make repairs is liable to a third party if the repairs were negligently made: Harris v. Lewistown Trust Company, 326 Pa. 145, 191 A. 34; Tarnogurski v. Rzepski, 252 Pa. 507, 97 A. 697; Theakston v. Kaszak, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 576, 33 A. 2d 46; Lasch v. Cohn, 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 161, 196 A. 581. The trouble with plaintiff's case is that defendant never made or undertook to make or was obligated to make repairs to the steel pole — at best for plaintiff. all defendant did was to paint the pole. Moreover, the rust' on the inside of the pole and its consequent dangerous, condition could not have been observed by any inspection from the outside, or by any kind of inspection except that detailed above. Under these facts, plaintiff has not brought himself within the above principle of law and the Court below correctly entered a judgment non. obstante . veredicto.
Judgment affirmed.