Glase ex rel. Limeburner v. Philadelphia

Citations

• 169 Pa. 488
• 32 A. 600
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1119

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Contributory negligence — Municipalities.</p> <p>Near a river, on a public promenade, was a group of twenty or thirty columns each three feet in diameter, and about twenty-five feet in height. Close to one of these columns and back of it was a manlmle, used for putting in coal, inclosed by a plate eighteen inches in diameter in the center, being vertical when the hole was open, and horizontal, or on a level with the surrounding surface, when closed. Plaintiff, a boy sixteen years of age, was on the land side of the columns, when another boy cried that a big fish had been caught. Plaintiff ran towards the river, and as he passed one of the columns, stepped on the plate, which turned vertically, and he fell astride of it, injuring himself seriously. Plaintiff testified that he saw that the plate was half way on when he was running towards it. He also said “ didn’t see it when I stepped on it, I imagine it was half way on.” Held, that although the plaintiff’s statements were not consistent, the question of his contributory negligence was for the jury. Meld also that the question of the city’s neg’igence was for the jury.</p> <p>If this manhole was covered, as plaintiff claimed, by a revolving lid, which, being unsecured, turned when stepped upon, it was aman trap, the very design of which was negligence. Its character and design were questions for the jury. It could hardly be said that the city did not know that its own contrivance, thus unsecured, and thus placed, was highly dangerous to the public invited upon that roof. It was not compelled to provide any such place of rest and pleasure, but when it did so, and invited the public to go upon it, clearly, according to all the cases, it owed to the public the duty of at least ordinary care. Per Dean, J.</p>