Munley v. Sugar Notch Borough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 110, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1896, No. 62, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Peter Munley by his next friend and mother, Margaret Munley, v. Sugar Notch Borough. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 110, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1896, No. 62, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Peter Munley by his next friend and mother, Margaret Munley, v. Sugar Notch Borough. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Halsey, J. From the record it appeared that the summons was issued on October 9, 1896, and that the statement was filed on February 15, 1905, and on the same day the defendant by its attorney, Thomas F. Farrell, pleaded not guilty. Other facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestbezat,
There was ample evidence in this case to charge the borough with constructive notice of the obstruction in the street which caused the injury to the plaintiff. Three or four witnesses testified that the board in the mortar box, which was the cause of the injury, had been there for at least three or four weeks prior to the time of the accident. The mortar boxes were on a much traveled street of the borough, and it was clearly the duty of the officials, having notice of their existence, to cause *230the obstruction to be removed. In this case it was not done, and if…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Potter Title & Trust Co. v. FrankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Ulakovic v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Prettyman v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Edwards v. Western Maryland Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.