Heiss v. Lancaster

Citations

• 203 Pa. 260
• 52 A. 201
• 1902 Pa. LEXIS 702

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Municipalities—Uncovered gutter — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action against a city to recover damages for personal injuries sustained at an uncovered gutter crossing, evidence is admissible that other gutter crossings in the city were in a similar condition to the one where the accident occurred.</p> <p>In au action against a city to recover for injuries sustained at an uncovered gutter crossing, it is proper for the court to charge that “ a city is not bound to keep its highways in the condition of absolute safety, nor is it obliged to cover its crossings at all places, if it does not see fit to do so. This, like all other city improvements, may be done or not, as the municipal authorities see proper, and the absence, therefore, of a crossing at the place of the accident, was not of itself negligence in the corporation.”</p> <p>In an accident case against a city, the court charged as follows: “A burden rests upon the plaintiff, even though the city was negligent. If. he could have seen the defect which was here alleged had he looked, and he did not look, he cannot recover in this action. He must make out a case of negligence on the part of the city, free from contributory negligence on his own part. Has he done so ? ” Held that the instruction stated the law with entire accuracy, and that the use of the word “ burden” was not improper.</p>