Legal Opinion

Meachem v. Coraopolis Borough

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 23, 1906No. Appeal, No. 132Published

Appeal, No. 132, April T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1905, No. 751, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Sarah Meachem v. Coraopolis Borough. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Evans, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $500. Defendant appealed. Error assigned among others was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Beaver, J.,

The appellant thus states the first question involved in this case: “Was there sufficient evidence of constructive notice to the borough defendant of the defective sidewalk to submit to the jury ? ” If this be answered in the affirmative, it follows that the request for binding instructions was properly refused.

An examination of the testimony leaves no doubt of the fact that, the testimony being believed, the defendant had at least constructive, if not actual, notice of the defective character of the sidewalk upon which the plaintiff was injured. The testimony of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lohr v. Philipsburg BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
  2. McClosky v. BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API