DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 21
Citation Numbers: 201 Pa. 51, 50 A. 310, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 717
Judges: Beown, Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mesteezat, Mitchell, Pottee
Filed Date: 11/8/1901
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
The testimony required a submission of the case to the jury. It tended to show that the ridge of ice had existed on the sidewalk for sufficient time to imply notice to the city, even if there was not notice in fact. The plaintiff was entitled to traverse the sidewalk, using proper care in so doing, and whether he had used such care was also for the jury. We therefore dismiss the specifications of error.
Judgment affirmed.
Fritzky v. Pittsburgh , 340 Pa. 217 ( 1940 )
Bailey v. Oil City , 305 Pa. 325 ( 1931 )
Keiser v. Philadelphia Transportation Co. , 356 Pa. 366 ( 1946 )
Coleman Et Ux. v. City of Scranton , 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 254 ( 1930 )
Beebe v. Philadelphia , 312 Pa. 214 ( 1933 )
McDonough v. Munhall Borough , 127 Pa. Super. 226 ( 1937 )
Strauch v. Scranton , 157 Pa. Super. 174 ( 1945 )
Julian Et Vir. v. Philadelphia , 147 Pa. Super. 323 ( 1941 )
McDonough v. Munhall Borough , 331 Pa. 468 ( 1938 )