Philadelphia v. Bergdoll

Citations

• 252 Pa. 545
• 97 A. 736
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 657

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Bidewallcs—Defects — Injury to pedestrians — Recovery against city — Action over against property owner — Tenant in possession — Constructive notice — Judgment for defendant n. o. v.</p> <p>1. The facts adequate to sustain a finding that a municipality had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of a sidewalk, may be entirely insufficient to justify such a conclusion in the case of an owner when the property in question is leased to and in the exclusive possession of a tenant.</p> <p>■ 2. In an action by a city against a property owner to recover damages paid by the former to a pedestrian for injuries sustained in a fall occasioned by the icy condition of the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s property, where such recovery had been had against the city on evidence of constructive notice of the condition through its existence for a period of ten days prior to the date of the accident, judgment for defendant n. o. v. was properly entered, where it appeared that at the time of the accident the premises were occupied by a tenant, that no actual notice of the condition of the sidewalk was brought to the defendant, nor was there any evidence that defendant or her agent had visited the house or were in its neighborhood at any time during the continuance of the nuisance, or that she had at any time seen or should have seen or known of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk, or any other evidence to justify an inference of notice to her.</p>