Byrne v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 42, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1901, No. 1394, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of George Byrne by his next friend and father Peter Byrne and Peter Byrne in his own right v. City of Philadelphia. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before WlLTBANK, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The plaintiff’s fall was caused by striking his foot against the edge of an asphalt pavement which at the line of the house steps was on the same level with the brick pavement which it adjoined, but was two or three inches above it at the curb. *599The accident happened before sunset on a clear day in June, when the plaintiff could have seen tire inequality in the pavement if he had looked. He testified that he did not look at the pavement at all. He was familiar with the locality; he had walked on this pavement almost daily for fourteen months and had not observed any defect in it. He…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Good v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Lundy v. City of SedaliaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912