Readdy v. Bor. of Shamokin

Citations

• 137 Pa. 98
• 20 A. 396
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 956

Syllabus

<p>1. A specification of error to the admission of evidence which does not set out the evidence admitted under the offer, and show that a bill of exceptions was sealed, is not in accordance with Rule XXIV. of the Supreme Court, and will not be considered.</p> <p>2. A specification that the court erred in not directing the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, under all the evidence in the case, will not be sustained when no request was made in the court below that such instruction should be given.</p> <p>3. In an action against a borough to recover damages for injuries received by the plaintiff's wife by falling upon a defective pavement, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for any temporary or permanent loss of earning power of the wife, and his expenses incurred for her medical attendance.</p> <p>4. Where there was evidence that there was an offset of from nine to fifteen inches in depth in the sidewalk, it was proper to submit to the jury to find whether the sidewalk was in a dangerous condition, so that it was negligence in the borough to permit it to remain so.</p>