Case Name: WILKINSON vs. BRADLEY
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1884-01-21
Citations: 4 Walk. 364
Docket Number: No. 311
Parties: WILKINSON vs. BRADLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 364–365

Head Matter:
WILKINSON vs. BRADLEY.
Where a builder enters into a written contract to repair a property, ■and the owner is present frequently when the work is going on, and professes himself satisfied with it, he renders himself liable for injuries to the adjoining property.
Error to Common Pleas No. 1, of Philadelphia County. No. 311 January Term, 1883.
In the spring of 1881 William Wilkinson owned a property, No. 1202 South Seventeenth street, in Philadelphia, and entered into a written contract with William Thompson & Brother, who were builders, to repair and improve the prop■erty for $1,350. During the work, the adjoining property, No. 1204, owned by Mary E. Bradley, wife of James Bradley, was injured by reason of the repairs. Suit was brought to recover damages for the injury thus sustained; and on February 2, 1883, the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $175. Testimony was given to the effect that Wilkinson had frequently visited the work; and Mrs. Bradley testified that when she complained of the injury and said the Thompsons were not capable builders, Mr. Wilkinson replied: “They did as I ordered;” he said he was satisfied with them ; he endorsed all they did, good or bad. Two written points of the plaintiff in error were affirmed, but an oral request to direct the jury to find for defendant was negatived. The refusal of the request forms the subject of the writ of error.
Peter Boyd., Esq , for plaintiff in error,
argued that where a man employs a competent contractor to build for him and does not interfere with the work, he is not liable for injuries to a stranger, caused by negligence in the work ; School District vs. Fuess, 11 W. N. C. 97; Painter vs. Mayor, 46 Pa. 213; Ardesco Oil Co. vs. Gilson, 63 Pa. 146; Wray vs. Evans, 80 Pa. 102; Harrison vs. Collin, 86 Pa. 153; and if the injury is caused by the negligence of the contractor’s servant, the Court should direct a verdict for defendant; Allen vs.. Willard, 57 Pa. 374.
R. P. Dechert, Esq., contra.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common. Pleas on January 21st, 1884, in the following opinion :
Per Curiam.
The learned judge affirmed all the written points submitted by the plaintiff in error; but refused the verbal request to take the case from the jury. In so doing, he was. clearly correct. The evidence was amply sufficient to justify sending the case to the jury, and it was correctly submitted.
Judgment affirmed.