Spratt v. Reymer & Bros.

Citations

• 57 Pa. Super. 566
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 237

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Hole in sidewalk — Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>■ 1. In an action by an elderly woman against the proprietor of a store building to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from falling into an opening in the sidewalk immediately in front of the store, the case is for the jury, both on the question of defendant’s negligence, and the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence, where the evidence tends to show that the accident happened on a congested sidewalk; that at the time of the accident it was raining so that the plaintiff and other pedestrians carried hoisted umbrellas; that the opening was about two and a half feet wide, and ordinarily protected by an iron covering; that at the time of the accident an employee of an ice company was delivering ice through the opening, and was himself leaning down over it; that the hole had been opened at the instance of the defendant, who had given instructions to the ice company and its servants, that when the door was opened pedestrians were to be carefully protected from injury; and that the plaintiff not noticing the hole or the stooping form of the iceman, fell over him partly into the hole, and was injured.</p> <p>Appeals — Review—Charge—Harmless error.</p> <p>2. A judgment for plaintiff in an action for damages for injuries resulting from a fall in a hole in a sidewalk, will not be reversed because the trial judge said to the jury that the plaintiff had a right to presume that the sidewalk was perfect at the time, if it appears that the court, when its attention was called to this statement, further charged that he meant that the plaintiff had a right to presume that the sidewalk was in a reasonably safe condition.</p>