McCabe v. Philadelphia

Citations

• 217 Pa. 140
• 66 A. 247
• 1907 Pa. LEXIS 671

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Municipalities—Sidewalk—Ice—Hole in ice — Proximate and remote came — Notice—Nonsuit.</p> <p>In an action against a city by a girl to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that plaintiff’s foot and leg plunged into a hole in the ice on a sidewalk. It was' shown that the sidewalk was entirely covered with ice for a considerable distance, and at the place of the accident the ice was between two and three feet deep. The hole was large enough to admit the foot, and was full of water. It was deep enough to wet the plaintiff’s stocking nearly up to her knee. She testified that she did not slip on the ice, but that her foot 'plunged directly into the hole. Plaintiff had passed over the pavement daily, but had not observed the hole before. Two of her witnesses testified that they had seen an opening in the immediate locality where the accident happened, but they did not clearly identify the opening which they saw with that which occasioned the accident. The authorities had no actual notice of the existence of the hole. The evidence showed that the weather had been unusually severe, and so continuous, that the icé on the pavement was. constantly accumulating. Held, (1) that the hole and not the accumulation of ice was the proximate cause of the injury; (2) that a nonsuit was properly entered.</p>