Cunningham v. Rogers
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
73 A. 1094 (1909)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Cunningham, a minor, attended a baseball game at the Philadelphia Ball Park (stadium) with his father. Cunningham’s father was killed and Cunningham was seriously injured when a portion of the grandstand above them collapsed. Cunningham’s mother and next friend (plaintiff) sued John I. Rogers and Alfred J. Reach (defendants), who owned the land on which the grandstand was built, alleging that it was negligently constructed and maintained. Rogers and Reach moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the Philadelphia Ball Club, Ltd. (Phillies) owned the grandstand and had been in continuous possession of the premises since the grandstand was built and thus they had no responsibility for the construction or maintenance of the grandstand. Specifically, Rogers and Reach showed that (1) the Phillies leased a vacant lot in 1891 from the property’s prior owner, (2) the stadium was built upon this lot, (3) the Phillies signed a 10-year lease extension with Rogers and Reach (who purchased the land in 1886) in 1896, (4) the Phillies built the grandstand after an 1894 fire destroyed the stadium, (5) the Phillies signed a new lease with Rogers and Reach in 1903, and (6) neither the stadium nor the grandstands ever became the property of Rogers and Reach. The district court granted Rogers and Reach’s directed-verdict motion. Cunningham’s mother appealed, arguing, among other things, that as landlords, Rogers and Reach were responsible for the damage caused by the dangerous condition of the grandstand.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Potter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.