## Facts

- A minor attended a baseball game at Philadelphia Ball Park with his father.
- During the game, a portion of the grandstand collapsed, killing the father and seriously injuring the child.
- The minor (by his mother as next friend) sued for the child’s injuries; the mother also sought damages for the father’s death.
- Defendants Rogers and Reach owned the fee in the land on which the ball park stood.
- The Philadelphia Ball Club, Ltd. was the tenant in continuous possession and operated the ball park and grandstand.
- The Ball Club originally leased the lot as vacant land and constructed the stadium structures; after a fire destroyed an earlier structure, the club built the grandstand involved in the collapse.
- The evidence showed the grandstand was treated as the tenant’s property, and the tenant retained possession and control of the structure throughout the tenancy.
- Plaintiff alleged negligent construction and maintenance of the grandstand and asserted the landowners should be liable as landlords.

## Issues

1. Whether landowners who lease land to a tenant that constructs, possesses, and controls a grandstand are liable in tort to third persons injured by the structure’s collapse.
2. Whether ownership of the underlying land, without ownership or control of the structure, is sufficient to impose a duty for alleged negligent construction or maintenance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the directed verdict for Rogers and Reach.
- The court held the defendants were not liable because they neither constructed nor owned nor controlled the grandstand, and no exception to landlord non-liability was shown.
- Because the material facts regarding possession and control were undisputed and defeated liability as a matter of law, taking the case from the jury was proper.

## Legal Principles

- A landlord who has parted with possession and control is generally not liable to third persons for injuries caused by defects or dangerous conditions on leased premises.
- Mere ownership of the fee does not impose tort liability for a tenant-owned and tenant-controlled structure.
- Landlord liability requires a recognized exception, such as retention of control, a covenant or undertaking to repair, or a latent defect known to the landlord at the time of letting and concealed from the tenant.

## Conclusion

The court allocated responsibility to the tenant-operator of the ball park because the tenant built, owned, and controlled the grandstand; absent proof of a recognized exception, the fee owners had no tort duty for injuries caused by the grandstand’s collapse.


Cunningham v. Rogers, 73 A. 1094 (Pa. 1909)