Glancy v. McKees Rocks Borough
Citations
- 243 Pa. 216
- 89 A. 972
- 1914 Pa. LEXIS 600
Syllabus
<p>Negligence — Municipalities—Dangerous sidewalks — Death—Intoxication of deceased — Evidence—Circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover damages for a death alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, the burden is upon the plaintiff to produce evidence which would justify a finding that the negligence of the defendant was the sole producing and proximate cause of the death, and in the absence of direct proofs the evidence must be such as reasonably to justify that conclusion alone.</p> <p>2. Where in such action the only evidence of negligence is circumstantial, and inferences can reasonably be drawn from the testimony that would lead equally as well to the conclusion that the death was due to other causes, the finding of the jury represents nothing more than a guess or conjecture upon the essential point, and a verdict for plaintiff in such case will not be sustained.</p> <p>3. The element relied on to justify a finding that loss of life was due to a particular act of negligence, in the absence of direct testimony of eye-witnesses, is the natural instinct which leads men in their sober senses to avoid injury and preserve life. The circumstance that the man who met his death was sober and able to control his actions and presumably did not do anything out of the usual and ordinary course which would be pursued under like surroundings by a man in his sober sense, is the controlling element in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict; but this presumption will not be given effect in the case of a man who admittedly was not in his Sober senses at the time of the accident.</p> <p>4. In an action of trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband, it appeared that deceased had been found dead at the foot of a declivity adjacent to a street in defendant borough. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had maintained a defective, unsafe and unguarded sidewalk at the edge of this slope, the condition of which
Judges: Fell, Mbstrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. ChamberlainSupreme Court· 1933-02-13· cited 425×
- Dannals v. Sylvania TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1916-10-02· cited 26×
- Tremelling v. Southern Pacific Co.Utah Supreme Court· 1917-12-04· cited 22×
- Horen v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1922-05-08· cited 21×
- Sullivan v. HamacherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1959-05-14· cited 16×
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1972-11-28· cited 13×
- Tennessee Cent. Ry. Co. v. DialCourt of Appeals of Tennessee· 1933-05-27· cited 11×
- Zeher v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1924-01-07· cited 9×
- Kradel v. Pittsburgh, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1917-01-08· cited 2×
- Ginocchietti v. Lehigh Valley RailroadPhiladelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1939-02-14· cited 1×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Allen v. WillardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1868-03-23· cited 52×
- McManamon v. Hanover TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1911-07-06· cited 23×
- Welsh v. Erie & Wyoming Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1897-05-27· cited 19×
- Stringert v. Township of RossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1897-01-04· cited 11×
- Runkle v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1913-01-06· cited 5×
- Mooney v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1902-06-04· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.