McDonald v. Philadelphia

Citations

• 248 Pa. 145
• 93 A. 959
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 532

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Municipalities—Defects in ■ street — Notice of defect — Automobiles—Passengers—Case for jury — Trials — Continuance — Refusal—Judicial discretion.</p> <p>1. Where an automobile ran into a hole in a public street whereby injuries resulted to a passenger in the car, the case was properly submitted to the jury in an action brought by such passenger against the municipality, there being evidence that the street had been negligently maintained, that defendant had actual or constructive notice of its defective condition for a sufficient time prior to the accident to have enabled it to make repairs and that the defective condition of the street was the proximate cause of the accident.</p> <p>2. In such case the court committed no abuse of judicial discretion in refusing to continue the case where counsel for the plaintiff in cross-examination of a witness for defendant sought to elicit hearsay evidence and upon objection thereto argued the admissibility of such evidence; the court sufficiently protected defendant’s' rights by sustaining the objection thereto.</p>