Murdaugh v. Oxford Borough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 11, Jan. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Chester Co., April T., 1905, No. 62, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Letitia W. Murdaugh v. Oxford Borough. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Hemphill, P. J. The facts relating to the accident are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The negligence alleged is that the defendant permitted the cover of a gutter which crossed the sidewalk of a street to remain out of repair. A nonsuit was entered on the ground that the defect in the cover was latent and of recent origin, that the borough authorities had no actual notice of it, and that constructive notice of it could not under the circumstances be imputed to them.
The gutter was one foot wide and six inches deep, and was at the side of an alley that intersected the street. It was covered with an oak board four or five feet long and one foot wide, so…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lohr v. Philipsburg BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3Cited by10 opinions
- Miller v. HickeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Murray v. SiegalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Philadelphia Ritz Carlton Co. v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Good v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Travers v. Delaware CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.