Hendrickson v. Chester City
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 326, Jan. T., 190Y, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 243, On verdict for defendant in case of Samuel H. Hendrickson and Leara Jane Hendrickson, his wife, v-. Chester City. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a fall'bn a slippery pavement. Before Johnson, P. J. . The opinion of 'the Supreme Court-states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 326, Jan. T., 190Y, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 243, On verdict for defendant in case of Samuel H. Hendrickson and Leara Jane Hendrickson, his wife, v-. Chester City. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a fall'bn a slippery pavement. Before Johnson, P. J. . The opinion of 'the Supreme Court-states the case. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. ■ ■ ■ ' Yerdict'and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
■- It was not shown that the place of the accident was essentially or continuously dangerous, though it might become so from’time to time when the ice melted in the day and froze in *121the night. There was no accumulation of ice or snow that remained there all the time. This resulted in a temporary and changeable condition dependent on the variation of the weather and it appeared that on the day preceding the evening of the accident the ice had melted and the street was clear. The learned judge was of opinion that the most that was shown “ was a general slippery condition of the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Bailey v. Oil CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- McDonough v. Munhall BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Solinsky v. Wilkes-BarreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Ross v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Coyle v. New KensingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.