Legal Opinion

Heinz v. Pittsburgh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 16, 1939No. Appeal, 43PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

Plaintiff was injured in stepping into a hole in the crosswalk of Dawson Street at its intersection with Semple Street in the city of Pittsburgh. The jury awarded damages but the verdict was set aside by the court and judgment entered for the defendant n. o. v. on its conclusion that the evidence charges plaintiff with contributory negligence barring recovery.

We are of the opinion that the question of plaintiff’s negligence was for the jury and the judgment will be reversed.

At the intersection of Dawson and Semple Streets the south sidewalk of Semple Street extended,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. McCracken v. Curwensville BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Lerner v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  3. Murphy v. Bernheim & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Lawrence v. Scranton CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  5. Tauber v. WilkinsburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brady v. Philadelphia (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  2. Stewart Et Vir v. PittsburghSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  3. Yost v. PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  4. Smith v. Coca Cola Bot. Co. of Pa.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Contillo Et Vir v. PittsburghSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API