Kniss v. Borough of Duquesne

Citations

• 255 Pa. 417
• 100 A. 132
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 469

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Streets—Dedication—Subsequently incorporated borough — A cceptance — Evidence—User ■ — • Negligence — Failure to repair. . '</p> <p>1. In an action' by a widow' against a borough to recover dajna^a! for the death of her husband, alleged to have been caused by the defective condition of a road which plaintiff contended was a public street, the question of defendant’s obligation to maintain the highway is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff is sustainable where the substantially uneontradicted evidence of the plaintiff is sufficient to prove that the road in question was plotted by the property owners on a plan of partition of lands, and that subsequently it was graded by such owners and opened to public use to facilitate the sale of the property, as part of a continuous thoroughfare from the opened streets of the borough to the adjoining townships; that this highway was used by the public generally and continuously, and that after the incorporation of the borough every street commissioner had done work on the road; and the only one having an interest in the real estate who testified stated that after opening the road he used it “the same as the public did.”</p> <p>2. Where in such case the evidence is sufficient to justify the conclusion that the original owners when they opened the road intended to set it apart for public use, the fact that there was no municipal corporation then existing will not defeat the, dedication, for, upon such a corporation coming into existence, it could take advantage of the situation.</p>