## Facts

- Ronald Wayne Haffley owned a one-story building whose front portion was used for his insurance business and whose rear portion was a living area.
- Before renting the rear portion, Haffley made alterations, including closing off two interior doorways that had connected the living area to the office area.
- Haffley also installed interior storm windows in the living area that could not be opened in the ordinary way and instead could be opened only by breaking the panes.
- In May 1976, Haffley leased the rear living area as an apartment to John Asper, who lived there with his daughters, including Joni Marie Asper.
- On September 8, 1976, a fire broke out in the apartment in the early morning while Joni was alone inside.
- Evidence indicated the fire’s location blocked the apartment’s door, leaving escape by the bedroom window as the only apparent route.
- Joni died of smoke inhalation; bruises, abrasions, and cuts on her hands and arms supported an inference that she attempted to break through the storm window but was unable to do so.
- Nancy Asper, as administratrix of Joni’s estate, sued Haffley asserting (1) negligence based on the condition and configuration of the rented premises affecting safe escape, (2) a theory tied to alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s Fire and Panic Act, and later sought to add (3) strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Haffley on the negligence claim for failure to allege sufficient facts under landlord-liability limits, ruled the Fire and Panic Act inapplicable to the building, and denied leave to amend to add a § 402A claim. The estate appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate alleged sufficient facts to proceed in negligence against a landlord for alterations and conditions (including storm windows that could be opened only by breaking) that allegedly created an unreasonable risk by limiting escape during a fire.
2. Whether the Fire and Panic Act applied to this building such that alleged noncompliance could support a claim against the landlord.
3. Whether the trial court properly denied leave to amend to add a Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A strict products-liability claim based on leasing the apartment and the window condition.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed summary judgment on the negligence claim and remanded, holding that the record permitted a factfinder to decide whether the landlord’s conduct in configuring and maintaining the premises unreasonably increased the risk of harm in a foreseeable emergency.
- The court affirmed the ruling that the Fire and Panic Act did not apply to the building at issue and therefore did not support the plaintiff’s statutory-based theory.
- The court affirmed the denial of leave to amend to add a § 402A claim, including because the proposed strict-liability theory was not properly treated as a “product” claim in this setting and because the late amendment raised limitations and relation-back problems.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where the evidence and reasonable inferences, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, allow a jury to decide whether the landlord failed to use reasonable care regarding conditions affecting tenant safety.
- A landlord’s structural changes or maintained conditions that may restrict safe egress can support a negligence claim when a jury could find the resulting harm was foreseeable and the risk unreasonable.
- A statutory-based claim depends on whether the statute covers the type of building involved; if the structure falls outside the statute’s scope, the statute does not supply a basis for liability in that case.
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A generally applies to sellers engaged in the business of selling products; treating a leased apartment (and its fixtures) as a “product” for § 402A purposes is not automatic, and late attempts to add a new strict-liability theory may be refused when time-bar concerns are present.

## Conclusion

In *Asper v. Haffley*, the Superior Court held that the estate presented enough evidence to let a jury determine whether the landlord was negligent in altering and maintaining the rented apartment in a way that may have prevented escape during a fire, but it agreed that the Fire and Panic Act did not apply to the building and upheld the trial court’s refusal to allow a late amendment seeking to add § 402A strict products liability.


Asper v. Haffley, 458 A.2d 1364 (1983)