always lie with the holder of legal title. Rather, it follows possession and control of the land. Williams v. Wolf, 169 Pa.Super. 628, 84 A.2d 215 (1951); Bagley v. City of Philadelphia, 148 Pa.Super. 318, 25 A.2d 579 (1942). This principle is most clearly established in the landlord-tenant situation where the landlord has leased the entire premises and placed the tenant in complete possession and control. Dinio v. Goshorn, 437 Pa. 224, 270 A.2d 203 (1970); Knickerbocker v. City of Scranton, 344 Pa. 317, 25 A.2d 152 (1942); Briggs v. City of Philadelphia, 316 Pa. 48, 173 A. 316 (1934).
The doctrine would logically be applied in any situation where the owner holds title only while another exercises possession and control. On the present state of this record, however, the Court cannot conclude that it would apply here. First, the management contract, by itself, is inconclusive on the issue of who had possession and control. It provides only for management and maintenance duties. Fuller development of the record is necessary to decide this issue. Further, under Article 2 of the contract, at least some labor for maintenance was to be supplied by the government. If this labor were responsible for ice and snow removal, then the government may be liable on the basis of employee negligence.
Second, it is not yet possible to say who had possession of the building. Since it was vacant, it may be that no one had possession. Under Pennsylvania law, if no one is in possession, the legal owner is liable. Palmore v. Morris, Tasker & Co., 182 Pa. 82, 37 A. 995 (1897); Grier v. Sampson, 27 Pa. 183 (1856). Even if the record should show that HUD had reasonably contracted with Chester Realty to perform its duties with respect to the property, as against third parties, these duties have been held to be nondelegable. Wagner v. Grannis, 287 F. Supp. 18 (W.D.Pa.1968); Fitzpatrick v. Penfield, 267 Pa. 564, 109 A. 653 (1920).
The foregoing clearly shows that plaintiff could, at trial, prove facts sufficient to impose a duty on an individual property owner in this case. Accordingly, under the Act, plaintiff could prove that the United States had a duty and that it was breached. This is not to say that plaintiff will be able to establish liability, but it is obvious that there are disagreements over material factual issues which necessitate a trial to resolve. In such a case a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.