Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Jan. T., 1967, No. 1089, in case of Joseph A. Sharp v. Milton Thomas Luksa, administrator of estate of Mary Luksa, deceased.
David H. Moskowitz, for appellant.
Alfred Francis Shea, for appellee.
Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell. Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts.
On March 8, 1966, Joseph A. Sharp fell from a ladder located in the barn on property owned by defendant's decedent, Mary Luksa.*fn1 Sharp brought a trespass action for the personal injuries which he suffered, and
at the close of his evidence, the lower Court granted a compulsory non-suit. From the Order denying his motion to remove the judgment of non-suit, plaintiff took this appeal. Cf. Kukich v. Serbian E. Orth. Ch. of Pgh., 415 Pa. 28, 202 A.2d 77; Constitutional Party of Pa. v. Kilgore, 427 Pa. 264, 233 A.2d 223.
Mary Luksa owned a large piece of land on which were her house, a barn containing straight and box stalls for horses, and a fenced-in pasture land. In September 1965, plaintiff entered into an oral lease with Mrs. Luksa for the rental of a box stall, the use of a tack room and the pasture, all to be used in connection with his stabling of a horse in the barn. The rent was $15 per month.
A disagreement arose almost immediately between plaintiff and another tenant, Bob Foster, who boarded his horse at the barn, over plaintiff's use of the tack room to store his tack. Rather than arguing with plaintiff, Foster complained to Mrs. Luksa, who informed him that plaintiff had a right to use the tack room as part of their rental agreement. Plaintiff thereafter suggested that "rather than have hard feelings with other people," he would store his tack in the "loft" and Mrs. Luksa agreed. However, shortly thereafter Foster left, and plaintiff went back to using the tack room pursuant to his original lease agreement with Mrs. Luksa.
During the second or third week of October 1965, plaintiff requested permission to store a ton of hay in the loft because it would be beneficial to him to get a large quantity of hay at a reduced rate. Mrs. Luksa agreed to this request, but did not increase plaintiff's rent or charge anything extra for this privilege.*fn2 Mrs.
Luksa continued to use part of the loft for the storage of ...