Court Opinion

ID: 9697872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:35:26.714217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:36.480681
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Musmanno :
On November 8, 1953, Mrs. Paula Lopez, while in the bedroom of a two-room apartment, which she occupied with her husband and six children, heard her husband shout from the kitchen: “. . . Bush to the windows, put the windows up, the children are being overcome with gas.” She flew to a window, threw up the sash, and in the instant, the glass fell from its frame and gashed her arm severely, causing her eventually *370to lose the use of her right hand, fingers, and forearm. The fateful window had been a disturbing factor for some time. From the day, six weeks previously, that Mrs. Lopez and her husband had rented the two rooms from the defendant, Edward W. Gukenback, she had complained that the window was defective: the glass was cracked, the sills rotted, the surrounding putty dry and non-adhering. The renting agents for the defendant promised to repair the window, but never did — until after the accident.
Mrs. Lopez and her husband brought an action against the owner of the building and they were non-suited in the Court below. This Court has affirmed the nonsuit. Was the question of defendant’s liability or nonliability under the circumstances a question of fact for the jury to decide, or one for the Court to determine in limine ?
The building in which the plaintiffs lived is a three-story structure with multiple tenants, and, as well stated by the Majority, the proprietor of such a structure is. bound to keep the parts of the building, which are common to all tenants, such as roofs and walls, in a reasonably safe condition.
It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defective window in their apartment formed part of the wall of the building and that, since the landlord is liable for defects in the walls, he is liable to Mrs. Lopez for the serious injuries she sustained. The defendant refutes this contention, and the Majority precisely states the resulting issue as follows: “Is a window located in a tenant’s apartment an inherent and integral part of the wall of the building — a defect which might affect other tenants and parts of the building— so that control and possession of the window are retained by the landlord rather than the tenant?”
The Majority answers this question in the negative.
*371If, prior to today, there had been no decision in the Pennsylvania appellate courts on the question before us, this Court could say, if it so wished, that, examining the entire subject it is satisfied not to take that step which would make landlords liable for a defect in any opening of a building, on the theory that an opening or portal is not part of the building’s fundamental structure for which the landlord would be responsible if defective. Or, if, after declaring that a window is not an integral part of the wall of the building, it went further and said that it overruled the authority of the case of Germansen v. Egan, 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 21, its logic would then be impeccable, even though it might be said that it had failed to recognize changing conditions.*
But this Court does not overrule the Germcmsen case. It stands squarely upon it, and explains how it differs from this case. Let us see if these two cases can be distinguished one from the other or if they belong, as I believe, under the same roof of landlord lia*372bility. The plaintiff in the cited case, Miss German-sen, was injured when glass from a skylight, hung over a room rented by her employer from the defendant-owner, fell and injured her. She sued the owner of the building, Mrs. Egan, and obtained a verdict which was affirmed by our Superior Court. In an excellently reasoned opinion, President Judge Keller, speaking for the Court, pointed out that the defendant Mrs. Egan knew that one of the panes in the skylight was cracked, she knew that snow could accumulate over the skylight, and she knew that the damaged glass would not be strong enough to bear the Aveight of the snoAV. He then Avent on specifically: “She [Mrs. Egan, the defendant] kneAV that the room under the light Avell, which she leased to the plaintiffs employer, Avas a work room occupied by people at work and liable to be injured by a broken skylight, and the duty rested on her as the OAvner in charge and custody of a building rented to various tenants to see that an instrumentality used for the general benefit of the building was in a reasonably safe condition, and when her attention Avas drawn to the cracked pane of glass in the skylight she should have been reasonably diligent in replacing it with a sound pane before the accident, as she. was immediately after it. Her negligence, in the circumstances, was a question of fact .for the jury.”
This Court expresses approval of the verdict obtained by Miss Germansen in her case but rejects the claim of Mrs. Lopez in the case at bar. The Majority differentiates the Germansen case from the Lopez case by stating that a window supplies no functional support to the wall of a building but that a skylight is, in effect, muscle and sinew to a roof. But wherein is the structural difference between a skylight and á window? Viewed from above, below, or the side, a skylight is a window, and nothing móre. Webster’s In*373ternational Dictionary defines a skylight as “A window in a roof.” Thus, it can be correctly said that a skylight is a roof window, while a window is a wall skylight. Both the skylight and the window receive light from but one source, the sky, that is to say, the sun. If the skylight is an inseparable segment of the roof, as Germcmsen says, and this Court emphasizes, how can it be said that a window does not form part of a wall? A window is as much an integral part of a wall as the skylight is an integral part of the roof. They differ only in that a skylight is horizontal and a window is vertical.
The Majority Opinion, in attempting to distinguish the Germcmsen case from the one at bar, says: “The skylight was integrally part and parcel of the roof, as well as a medium for the entrance of light and air; it was functionally a component part of the roof. The instant window was primarily a medium for the entry of light and air into this particular apartment; any function, if any, served in connection with the wall was purely incidental.” But can it really be said that the function of a skylight, in serving as part of the roof, is any less incidental than a window supporting a wall? Are they not both indispensable pieces of mosaic in their respective pictures?
Are they not equally as strong and equally as weak? Will a skylight support the kick of a foot any more than a window can withstand the thrust of a fist? Will an ancient, battered, and cracked skylight be any safer than an ancient, battered, and cracked window? Will a broken skylight sustain the vibration and push of pressure any more than a broken window? In the Germcmsen case the glass fell only because of the snow which had descended on it. No one struck it, no one kicked it, no. one pushed it. . The skylight gave way . because.the glass in.it-was cracked.- The window here. *374gave way because the glass in it was cracked. Where is the difference between the two cases?
If the Majority can make of a window something less than part of a wall, it cannot make of a skylight something more than a lamp on the roof.
And so long as a window remains only a medium for light and air and an aperture through which to look at the outside world, I cannot look through it and see in a skylight anything more than that. If Germansen is right, the decision in this case is something less than right. If this decision is right, Germansen is wrong.
While consistency has ceased to be a jewel, I would still like to see on the escutcheon of the law the shining-gem of uniformity between decisions which involve the same principle of jurisprudence.

 For instance, the Philadelphia Housing Code, approved August 5, 1954, provides: “No person shall occupy as owner occupant or shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling, rooming house, dwelling unit, or rooming unit which does not comply with the following minimum standard for safe and sanitary maintenance: 8.3 Every window, exterior door and basement or cellar door and hatchway shall be substantially weathertight, watertight and rodent proof; and shall he kept in sound working condition and good repair.” Of course, this code was approved after the date of the accident in this case and, therefore, can have no application to the litigation. I cite it only for the purpose of showing the trend of the times. The Multiple Dwelling Daw of New York, (Sec. 78, Consolidated Daws, Annotated Book 35-A, as amended, effective April 22, 1946, provides: “Every multiple dwelling including its roof or roofs and every part thereof, and the lot upon which it is situated, shall be kept in good repair. The owner .shall be responsible for compliance with the provisions of this section. . ) .” (Emphasis supplied).