Crumlich v. Harrisburg
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 21, May T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 261, on verdict for the plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Simonton, P. J. At the trial, it appeared that, on April 12,1898, between six and seven o’clock in the morning, plaintiff fell on the sidewalk of Court avenue, in the city of Plarrisburg, and sprained her foot and ankle.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 21, May T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 261, on verdict for the plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Simonton, P. J. At the trial, it appeared that, on April 12,1898, between six and seven o’clock in the morning, plaintiff fell on the sidewalk of Court avenue, in the city of Plarrisburg, and sprained her foot and ankle. At the place where the accident occurred, close to the curb line, was an iron pavewash, consisting of a wooden box sunk into the ground with an iron cap, and covered on the top with an iron lid. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There was no error either in refusing to affirm defendant’s first, fourth and fifth points for charge, or in' entering judgment for plaintiff on the verdict. The testimony was quite sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the question of defendant’s negligence, if not also on the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence ; and it was fairly submitted to them with instructions which appear to be fully adequate and free from error. The testimony tends to show, and doubtless the jury found, that the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury was the careless and negligent manner…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Clavarie & Noble v. WaggamanLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1881