Rushton v. City of Allegheny
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 47, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1896, No. 129, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass for personal injuries. Before McClung, J. At the trial it appeared that about 7 o’clock on May 4,1895, Mrs. Rushton, one of the plaintiffs, while walking on a sidewalk of Federal street in the city of Allegheny, stepped on the covering of a coal hole and, the covering tilting, fell partly into the hole.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 47, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1896, No. 129, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass for personal injuries. Before McClung, J. At the trial it appeared that about 7 o’clock on May 4,1895, Mrs. Rushton, one of the plaintiffs, while walking on a sidewalk of Federal street in the city of Allegheny, stepped on the covering of a coal hole and, the covering tilting, fell partly into the hole. There was no evidence as to how the covering had been misplaced. Other facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court entered a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb.. Justice McCollum,
The plaintiff, Mary Rushton, claims $30,000 as damages for an injury she received in May, 1895, by a fall into a coal hole or chute in the center of a sidewalk on Federal street, in Allegheny city, and her husband, Henry Rushton, claims $10,000 to compensate him for the loss or impairment of her services, for medical treatment provided for her, and for the extra help required because of her disability. The evidence descriptive of the injury received is not disputed, and the only question to be determined is whether the evidence in the case is sufficient to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Pischke Et Vir. v. Dormont Boro.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Strohm v. HaverstickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910