Rosevere v. Borough

Citations

• 169 Pa. 555
• 32 A. 548
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1129

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Negligence — Boroughs—Sidewalks—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall upon a sidewalk alleged to be defective, it is not improper for the court to call the jury’s attention to the difference between the positive testimony of witnesses who stated that they saw a hole in the sidewalk, and the negative testimony of witnesses who stated that they saw no defect.</p> <p>In such a case it is not ground for reversing a judgment for plaintiff that the trial judge, after referring to the testimony of the plaintiff and several of her relatives as to the existence of a hole in the sidewalk. referred to the testimony of a stranger who had seen a woman in a prostrate condition on the sidewalk, as “ strong evidence, because it is from an independent source.”</p> <p>The trial judge in such a case cannot be charged with error because he said “ it is not a question whether all passers-by actually noticed the defect, hut whether it was noticeable.” If the hole was of a such a character as to be noticeable to those who looked, it is all the law requires, and that is all the trial judge meant by what he said.</p> <p>In such a case where suit was not brought until three years after the accident, it is proper to allow proof to be made that advice was taken of counsel about a year after the accident.</p>