O'Neill v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 124 and 125, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgments of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1911, No. 3740, on separate verdicts for plaintiffs in case of William J. O’Neill, and Catharine O’Neill v. City of Philadelphia. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Wiltbank, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 124 and 125, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgments of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1911, No. 3740, on separate verdicts for plaintiffs in case of William J. O’Neill, and Catharine O’Neill v. City of Philadelphia. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Wiltbank, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Counsel for defendant requested the court to further' charge the jury to the effect that it was for them to determine whether or not the plaintiff, Catharine O’Neill,' was guilty of such contributory negligence as led to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
On December 2, 1910, between 5 and 6 o’clock in the evening,- Catharine O’Neill, while walking down North Marshall street, in the City of Philadelphia, stepped into a hole in the pavement and sustained a severe fall. The circumference of the hole was, according to the testimony, about that of a bushel basket and its depth about -six inches. In this action, brought by Mrs; O’Neill and her husband' against the city, verdicts, were *16returned in their favor. It clearly appeared that the dangerous hole had been in the sidewalk for several months prior to the accident.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Musick v. Borough of LatrobeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- New York Etc. R. Co. v. EnchesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Heffner v. ChambersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888