Lockard v. Vare

Citations

• 230 Pa. 591
• 79 A. 802
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 654

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Defective pavement on sidewalk — Evidence—Question for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action by a wqman against a firm of paving contractors to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a brick in a sidewalk sinking under the plaintiff’s weight, at a point in a sidewalk which the defendants were under contract to maintain in good condition, the case is for the jury where the plaintiff’s-testimony as to the cause of the accident is corroborated by that of a woman who lived in the house in front of which plaintiff fell, • to the effect that she saw bricks being relaid a day or two before the accident, and that the work had not been properly done, although defendant’s foreman testified that he had relaid the pavement in a proper manner six days before the accident.</p> <p>2. In such a case' it is not error to admit in evidence the testimony of the corroborating witness, that she saw a large hole in the pavement an hour after the accident.</p> <p>Evidence — Witness—Competency of witness — Party dead — Action in tort — Act of May S3, 1887, P. L. 158.</p> <p>3. In an action of trespass against a partnership to recover damages for personal injuries, where one of the defendants dies after issue is joined, and the jury are sworn as to the surviving partners, the plaintiff is incompetent to testify as to the circumstances of the accident which happened in the lifetime of the deceased partner, although she may testify as to matters that occurred between her and the surviving partners.</p> <p>4. The Act of May 23, 1887, P. L. 158, relating to the competency of witnesess, makes no distinction between actions sounding in tort and those arising from contract.</p>