Strohm v. Haverstick

Citations

• 44 Pa. Super. 166
• 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Sidewalk—Coal hole — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a fall into a coal hole opened in a sidewalk in the direct line of travel to defendant’s store, the case is for the jury where the evidence shows that the accident happened shortly after the hole had been opened for putting in coal and apparently closed; that the defendant’s uncontradicted proof showed that if the iron covering of the hole had rested where it was designed to rest on the collar provided for it, no displacement of it could have happened by a foot passenger stepping upon it; and that the plaintiff’s proof was conclusive that when he stepped upon the covering it slipped away from its bed and left the hole uncovered.</p> <p>2. In such a case it is not error for the court to refuse to charge that “greater care is required of one using the sidewalk within the space in which cellar doors, openings and steps may be lawfully maintained” than on the remainder of the footway, and to leave to the jury to say whether the plaintiff had exercised reasonable care under all the circumstances.</p>