# FELTON, BY FELTON v. Spratley

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 29, 1994 · 433 Pa. Super. 474

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650104

## Case

- **Full name:** Shakeema FELTON, a Minor, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian, Lucretia FELTON and Lucretia Felton in Her Own Right, Appellants, v. Jessie SPRATLEY, Executor of the Estate of Maria Spratley, A/K/A Marie Beatrice Taylor Spratley, A/K/A Marie Taylor Spratley and Mollucye Spratley Pearson, Executrix of the Estate of Marie Spratley, A/K/A Marie Beatrice Taylor Spratley, A/K/A Marie Taylor Spratley, Appellees
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 29, 1994
- **Citations:** 433 Pa. Super. 474; 640 A.2d 1358; 1994 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1285
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cercone
- **Judges:** Beck, Popovich, Cercone
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650104

## Opinion text

CERCONE, Judge,
concurring.
I join the opinion of my colleague Judge Popovich and write separately merely to emphasize that the trial court correctly recognized that this case is governed by Kolojeski v. Deisher, Inc., 429 Pa. 191 , 239 A.2d 329 (1968), wherein the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to impose an affirmative duty upon a landlord to inspect rental property for lead based paint contamination in the absence of a statutory requirement to do so. The Philadelphia ordinance applicable instantly imposes *488 the duty on a landlord to correct any hazardous condition which has been identified by the Department of Public Health. See Philadelphia Municipal Code § 6-403(4)(b). However, the length of time within which the property’s owner must act is left to the discretion of the Department. Id. § 6-403(b)(b)(.1)(.a). In this case, the trial court found, and appellants concede, that the landlord had no actual knowledge of the lead based paint hazard in the demised premises prior to receiving notice to that effect from the Board of Health. The trial court further determined that defendants/appellees acted in compliance with the Philadelphia ordinance and corrected the lead based paint hazard within thirty days after receiving actual notice of the problem. The question of whether, under these circumstances, the Kolojeski rule should be expanded to impose liability for the landlord’s alleged “constructive knowledge” of the hazardous condition must be left to our Supreme Court for resolution.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650104. Public record. Not legal advice.