McClosky v. Borough
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 25, Feb. T., 1897, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Deo. T., 1894, No. 118, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for injuries resulting from a defective sidewalk.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 25, Feb. T., 1897, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Deo. T., 1894, No. 118, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for injuries resulting from a defective sidewalk. Before Gordon, P. J. This was an action of trespass brought by John McClosky and Izett McClosky, liis wife, for the use of Izefct McClosky against the borough of Dubois to recover damages for an alleged injury caused by the plaintiff falling or breaking through a foot-walk in said borough about the 10th of April, 1894. There was evidence tending to show the bad condition of the sidewalk, and that it had…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The plaintiff recovered a verdict for damages because of personal injuries alleged to have been received by falling through a plank sidewalk in the borough of Dubois.
The case presented questions of fact as to the condition of the footwalk, and the conduct of the plaintiff and of the officers of the borough. Was the walk safe, or was it out of repair and dangerous ? Had the borough authorities actual or constructive notice of its alleged defects, and were they negligent in failing to keep it in proper repair? Was the plaintiff injured because of the negligence of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lohr v. Philipsburg BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Davidson v. SandersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Frye v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Olin v. BradfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Meachem v. Coraopolis BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906