Toglatti v. Carrick Borough

Citations

• 61 Pa. Super. 244
• 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 308

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Boroughs—Defective sidewalk — Evidence — Notice —New trial.</p> <p>In an action by a woman against a borough to recover for personal injuries sustained while walking on a defective boardwalk, where the statement of claim avers in general terms that the plaintiff was injured by a fall caused by a defect in a sidewalk on the north side of a street designated and at some point near a crossroad towards which she was walking, and the testimony of the plaintiff does not fix the precise point at which she fell, but merely shows that she had passed a bowling alley on the street, and it appears that the plaintiff was somewhat confused in trying to identify the spot from a photograph of the street shown to her, and it also appears that the testimony of one of the defendant’s witnesses conflicted with that of the plaintiff as to the locality of the defect, the case is for the jury under all the conflicting testimony, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained.</p> <p>In such a ease where one of plaintiff’s witnesses testifies that he had notified the chief of police of the borough as to the dangerous condition of the whole boardwalk, and two other witnesses for plaintiff testify that the walk was defective in a number of places and had been so for three years, and the evidence of the borough contradicts the witnesses for the plaintiff, the question of the borough’s notice of the defect is for the jury.</p> <p>A boast made by a witness for plaintiff in an accident case against a borough that he had received twenty dollars for testifying, is not a ground for a new trial where it appears that the boast was made while the witness was intoxicated, that he never did receive twenty dollars or any other sum, and that the verdict' could be sustained on the other testimony in the case.</p>