# Reitmeyer v. Sprecher > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 1, 1968 · 431 Pa. 284 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706997 ## Case - **Full name:** Reitmeyer, Appellant, v. Sprecher - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** July 1, 1968 - **Citations:** 431 Pa. 284; 243 A.2d 395; 1968 Pa. LEXIS 621 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Bell - **Judges:** Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Easen, O'Brien, Roberts - **Cited by:** 62 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/9706997 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that lessee could only sue landlord in tort for the defective condition of the premises despite that the parties had executed a lease and the landlord had promised to make the needed repairs - recognizing responsibility of landlord for injury, to tenant resulting from certain defects in the premises ## Opinion text Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell: The majority Opinion overrules three decisions of this Court which are right smack in point. The majority do this because all of a sudden the landlord-to-be and the tenant-to-be do not negotiate a lease on an “arm’s length” basis, and the position of the average tenant vis-a-vis the landlord is today inferior — as if this situation were different than ever before. If premises are in bad condition, it not only affects and lowers their sale value but likewise their rental value. There is no acute housing shortage (as the majority assert), and, if there were, it would not have arisen suddenly in the last three months after this Court decided Kolojeski v. John Deisher, Inc., 429 Pa. 191, 194, 195 , 239 A. 2d 329 (1968). In Kolojeski this Court decided for *292 the third time that a tenant conld not recover in tort for injuries suffered by him due to a defective condition of the leased premises, which was known to the tenant and which the landlord had orally promised the tenant to repair. Kolojeski ; and Harris v. Lewistown Trust Co., 326 Pa. 145 , 191 A. 34 (1937); and Hayden et ux. v. National Bank of Allentown, 331 Pa. 29, 31 , 199 A. 218 (1938); squarely govern the instant case, and to justify its present decision, they must, as the majority admit, be overruled. In a Constitutional Republican form of Government such as ours, which is based upon law and order, Oertainty and Stability are essential. Unless the Courts establish and maintain certainty and stability in the law, businessmen cannot safely and wisely make contracts with their employees or with each other; the meaning of wills, bonds, contracts, deeds and leases will fluctuate and change with each change in the personnel or in the changing views of a Court; property interests will be jeopardized and frequently lost or changed; Government cannot adequately protect law-abiding persons or communities against criminals; private citizens will not know their rights and obligations; and public officials will not know from week to week or month to month the powers and limitations of Government. This has been recognized for centuries by English-speaking peoples. Lord Coke, Chief Justice of England, thus wisely expressed (circa 1600) these truths: “The knowne certain tie of the law is the safetie of all.” This has been a beacon light for Anglo-American Courts, for text authorities, and for law-abiding Americans ever since the foundation of our Country. In the realm of the law it is usually expressed in the principle known as Stare Decisis. Stare Decisis is one of the bed-rocks upon which the House of Law has been erected and maintained. *293 It is obvious, if we are to progress, that there always will be exceptions to every general rule or principle, and that neither the law nor the principle of Stare Decisis can or should be as immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. However, the instant case does not fall within any of the exceptions to the principle of Stare Decisis. * What is the use of talking about Stare Decisis, or increased litigation, or the terrible backlog of cases, if a majority of this Court bury Stare Decisis at their daily or weekly or monthly wish, or whim ? And what, may I ask, happens to the parol evidence rule and the doctrine of assumption of risk, or of contributory negligence? For these reasons, I vigorously dissent. Restifo v. McDonald, 426 Pa. 5, 13-18 , 230 A. 2d 199 ; and Michael v. Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital, 404 Pa. 424, 437-442, 172 A. 2d 769 . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706997. Public record. Not legal advice.