Roop v. City of Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 119, Jan. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 2682, on verdict directed for defendant in the case of Mary V. Roop v. City of Philadelphia. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff due to a fall on the icy sidewalk. Before Shoemaker, J. To show constructive notice of the condition of the path the records of the United States weather bureau at Philadelphia were given in evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 119, Jan. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 2682, on verdict directed for defendant in the case of Mary V. Roop v. City of Philadelphia. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff due to a fall on the icy sidewalk. Before Shoemaker, J. To show constructive notice of the condition of the path the records of the United States weather bureau at Philadelphia were given in evidence. This record showed: no snow on the ground March 13th, rain March 14th, changing to snow March 15th, and by 8 p. m. there was…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The complaint of the appellant is of the negligence of the City of Philadelphia in permitting ice to accumulate on one of its paths or sidewalks in Vernon park, at the point where she fell. The path was covered with snow, and the plaintiff testified that after she had fallen she discovex*ed ridges of ice beneath the snow, which caused her to fall. How long the ice had been there did not appear from the testimony, and there was nothing to show that the city had either actual or constructive notice of the icy condition of the path. The verdict for the defendant having been properly…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Canfield v. PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Chase v. City of ErieSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931