Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HARKER v. D. & H. BUILDING WRECKERS (04/24/68)

decided: April 24, 1968.

HARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
D. & H. BUILDING WRECKERS, INC.



Appeals from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1963, No. 1884, in case of Nellie Harker v. D. & H. Building Wreckers, Inc., Tenney Realty Corporation of Pittsburgh, City of Pittsburgh et al.

COUNSEL

L. J. Bucki and Bresci R. P. Leonard, with them Royston, Robb, Leonard, Edgecombe, Miller & Shorall, for appellant.

Cyril A. Fox, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Robert Engel, Assistant City Solicitor, and David Stahl, City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh, appellee.

Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Mr. Chief Justice Bell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts. Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this dissenting opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 429 Pa. Page 655]

Judgment affirmed.

Disposition

Judgment affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts:

D. & H. Building Wreckers, Inc. was employed to demolish the Rosenbaum Building in downtown Pittsburgh. During the course of the demolition, debris from that building fell through the roof of an adjoining building, injuring appellant Nellie Harker, an employee

[ 429 Pa. Page 656]

    of the firm occupying that space.

Appellant subsequently brought actions against all of the eight parties potentially liable, including the City of Pittsburgh, the theory being that liability stems from the failure of the City to insure compliance with its ordinances establishing precautions to be taken in the course of such demolition and the City's negligent supervision and control of D. & H. The City thereafter filed an answer denying liability and asserting the defense of sovereign immunity. Its motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.