Allen v. DuBois Borough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 343, Jan. Term, 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 351, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Savxdge, P. J., of' the 8th judicial district specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 343, Jan. Term, 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 351, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Savxdge, P. J., of' the 8th judicial district specially presiding. The facts appear by the opinion of the court discharging rule for new trial, which was as follows : The walk in question was out of repair and had been in an unsafe condition for a long time, as appears clearly from the evidence, and sufficient time had elapsed to visit the borough officials with constructive notice as also appears. The evidence of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cuexajvc,
According to the practically undisputed evidence, the borough officials were grossly negligent in permitting the board *187walk in question to remain so long in an unsafe condition; and doubtless the jury had no difficulty in finding that defendant’s negligence in that regard was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. But it is contended that the evidence of plaintiffs contributory negligence was such as to make it the duty of the court to withdraw the case from the jury by directing a verdict for defendant. This position is untenable. While there was some testimony tending to…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Ellis v. Lake Shore Etc. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Muckinhaupt v. Erie RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Graham v. Reynoldsville Boro.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Chambers v. Braddock BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Walton v. Colwyn BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.