ROBERT R. ROTH
v.
BANKERS SECURITIES CORPORATION, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A hotel owner is liable for injuries caused by installing an insufficiently strong glass panel as part of its exterior wall, even if installed by an independent contractor, if the owner specified the type of glass.
A hotel guest was injured when a decorative glass panel on the hotel's exterior wall shattered as they leaned against it. The jury found the hotel neg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Independent Contractor Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, the owner of the John Bartram Hotel in Philadelphia, has appealed from a verdict and judgment against it in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a guest of the hotel. The injuries occurred when a frosted decorative glass panel forming part of the first floor wall of the defendant’s hotel adjacent to the sidewalk broke and shattered as the plaintiff partially leaned against it. The plaintiff was standing on the sidewalk at a point where the railing of a subway entrance approached the wall of the hotel at right angles and was leaning partially against the subway railing and partially against the glass panel, exerting a pressure of 10 or 15 pounds against the latter. There was ample evidence from which the jury was justified in finding that the type of glass used in this panel was not sufficiently strong to withstand the pressures which pedestrians on an adjacent sidewalk might be expected to exert against it and that the defendant was, therefore, negligent in installing it as a part of the outside ground floor wall of the hotel adjacent to the public sidewalk. See Restatement, Torts, § 364, and compare Pope v. Reading Company, 1931, 304 Pa. 326,156 A. 106. We are satisfied also that on the evidence in this case the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury.
The defendant urges that it should not be held responsible since the work of installing the glass panel was done by an independent contractor. This defense is without merit, however, since there was no evidence that the contractor did other than install the type of glass panel specified by the defendant. For it-was the type of glass used and not an individual defect in the particular glass installed which, according to the evidence, was the reason for the breakage which caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.