Ford v. Philadelphia

Citations

• 45 Pa. Super. 404
• 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 57

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities—Sidewalks—Light well—Contributory negligence— Question for fury.</p> <p>1. The reasonable care which the law exacts of all persons in whatever they do, involving the risk of injury, requires travelers on the footways of public streets to look where they are going, but this does not necessarily imply that the pedestrian must keep his eyes constantly and at every moment upon the pavement. If there is a conflict of testimony or, for any cause, there is a reasonable doubt as to the facts, or as to the inferences to be drawn from the facts established by the evidence, the contributory negligence of the pedestrian is a question for the jury.</p> <p>2. In an action by a woman against a city to recover damages for personal injuries caused by falling into a unguarded light well extending in a sidewalk from ten to eighteen inches from the house line, the case is for the jury, where the evidence shows that the accident occurred at night; that the sidewalk was eight feet wide, but that about one-third of the walking space was taken up by Belgian blocks piled on the curbed side; that at the time of the accident, and at the point where it occurred, a crowd of people were going from a neighboring church; and the plaintiff’s testimony is in effect that she did not think that she could have seen the hole even if she had looked down.</p> <p>3. In such a case the court could not instruct the jury that the light well in question, unguarded as it was, was a lawful construction, and that that city was not liable for permitting it to be maintained in the highway.</p>