Skip to main content
· 3/17/1897

McClosky v. Borough

Citations

  • 4 Pa. Super. 181
  • 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 105

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Defective sidewalk — Question for jury.</p> <p>Where a case presented questions of fact as to the conditions of a foot-walk, and the conduct of the plaintiff and of the officers of the borough: Was the walk safe or out of repair ? Had the borough authorities actual or constructive notice of its alleged defects, and were they negligent in failing to keep it in proper repair? Was the plaintiff injured because of the negligence of the borough officers having charge of the walk and without fault on her part? If so, to what extent, and what was reasonable compensation therefor? There being sufficient evidence to raise these questions the case was properly submitted to the jury.</p> <p>Negligence — Boroughs—Sideioalks—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action against a borough to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a fall on an alleged defective sidewalk, it is proper to admit evidence of the condition of the sidewalk six weeks after the accident, where it appears that there was no change in its condition from the time of the accident to the time of the examination by the witnesses.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Improper remarks of counsel — Record—Review.</p> <p>Remarks of counsel which are not only in exceedingly bad taste but which grossly violate professional ethics should not be indulged in nor permitted. When such remarks moreover assume the aspect of a threat they should not be tolerated, and a new trial should be granted as a deserved rebuke to counsel for employing such tactics.</p> <p>In the case at bar the appellate court held that while there was nothing on the record which justified a reversal, the matters objected to deserved notice and rebuke.</p> <p>Negligence — Boroughs—Sidewalks—Notice—Evidence.</p> <p>The case is properly for the jury where there was evidence tending to show that a plank sidewalk on a borough street was rotten and had been patched in places, and that this had been observed by various persons for periods ranging from six weeks

Judges: Beaver, Orlady, Reeder, Rice, Smith, Wickham, Willard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.