Schneider v. Mill Creek Borough
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 221, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Feb. T., 1910, No. 10, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James M. Schneider v. Mill Creek Borough. Trespass to recover damages for injuries to a traction engine. Before Woods, P: J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $170.07. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This action was brought to recover damages for injuries caused to the plaintiff’s traction engine by the breaking down of a bridge across which it was being propelled. It is undisputed that the bridge formed part of the highway, and that it was the duty of the borough to maintain it in reasonably safe condition. Nor is any question raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding that this duty was neglected. The sole question raised by the appellant is, whether the court should have given binding direction for the defendant on the ground of plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Steck v. City of AlleghenySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Kuntz v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Mellor v. Burgess & Town Council of BridgeportSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Stokes v. Township of RalphoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Coulter v. Pine TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.