Hadley v. City of Coatesville

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 465
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 141

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Contributory negligence — Municipalities — Streets —Crossings—Choice of routes — Question for jury.</p> <p>In an action of trespass to recover damages for injuries sustained as the result of a fall caused by tbe defective condition of a city street, where tbe evidence was that tbe plaintiff exercised due care in attempting to cross tbe street, tbe fact that there was another crossing place, which tbe city contended tbe plaintiff should have used, was not of itself sufficient to establish contributory negligence. In tbe absence of clear evidence that one route was safer than tbe other, tbe convenience and Tisk of tbe ways was relative, and tbe question of negligence and contributory negligence was for tbe jury.</p> <p>If tbe alternative route has dangers of its own and tbe dangers of tbe route actually taken are not so great and obvious as to deter tbe general public and ordinarily prudent and careful people from using it, tbe question of contributory negligence of tbe person injured is for tbe jury.</p>