Court Opinion

ID: 9652364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:22:50.994452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:50.674532
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
Insofar as the majority opinion represents the adoption in this Commonwealth of Section 5.4 of the Restatement, Second, Property, I am in complete agreement. The common law rule that an accidental fire which totally destroys a building is no defense to the claim for rent for the premises, is clearly inappropriate in our present society.*
As I view our holding today, it replaces a rule of law, which may have had validity in a predominantly agrarian society but is clearly outmoded today.

 The rationale of the common law rule was stated in Paxson & Comfort Co. v. Potter, 30 Pa.Super. 615, 616 (1906):
“This rule has its foundation in the fact that the tenant is still in possession of the soil on which the building was located and that something remains to which the lease attaches. He may use the land for some purposes and may reconstruct the building.” (Emphasis added).
See also, Supermarkets Operating Co. v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 257 F.Supp. 273 (D.C.Pa.1966); Solomon v. Neisner Bros., Inc., 93 F.Supp. 310 (1950), aff'd, 187 F.2d 735 (CA3d); Demas v. Laskey, 358 Pa. 633, 58 A.2d 134 (1948); 32 Am.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, §§ 493, 494; Sum.Pa.Jur. Landlord and Tenant, § 72.