Llewellyn v. Wilkes-Barre

Citations

• 254 Pa. 196
• 98 A. 886
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 704

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Municipalities — Sidewalks — Ice — Constructive notice — Case for jury — Charge—Damages—Measure of damages— Remarks of counsel.</p> <p>1. In an action against a municipality brought by a pedestrian to recover damages for injuries sustained in consequence of a fall induced by accumulations of ice upon a sidewalk, the evidence of constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk is sufficient to carry the case to the jury, where it appeared that the dangerous condition had existed four or five days immediately preceding the accident.</p> <p>2. In such case the court was not in error in charging the jury that “where the condition of the street has existed long enough to give a presumption of notice to the authorities of the' city that the condition exists, then the city has such notice as a matter of law because the streets are open and all people passing up and down the streets must see their condition; officials passing up and down the streets must see their condition; and policemen passing upon their beats must see their condition.”</p> <p>3. Where in such case there was evidence that the front of the property upon which the ice had accumulated was illuminated on the night of the accident, so that the obstruction could be seen, the trial judge did not err in refusing to affirm a point to the effect that if the jury believed the testimony of certain witnesses as to the illumination in front of the property on the night of the accident, and that the obstruction could be plainly seen, there could be no recovery. There being evidence that the ground was covered with a light snow, it was for the jury to determine whether or not plaintiff should have seen the dangers of the place.</p> <p>4. Where in such case it appeared that plaintiff was an attorney-at-law in active practice, and estimated his earnings for the year preceding the accident from an examination of his bank book, check book, etc., which were offered in evidence, the court did not