Blair v. Borough of Pottstown
Opinion of the Court
On the trial of this case, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $305.83. The defendant municipality moves for a new trial, alleging the verdict was against the law, the evidence and the weight of the evidence. At the oral argument on this motion the defendant relied upon the reason that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
This is an action in trespass to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage to an automobile, sustained when plaintiff’s automobile, operated by her husband and in which she was a passenger, overturned due to the alleged icy, unsafe and defective condition of a public street maintained by the defendant borough.
The plaintiff produced numerous witnesses and it was admitted by the defendant that this wet and icy condition at certain seasons in each year had existed for a period of at least 5 years prior to this accident. The plaintiff therefore contended that the defendant municipality was negligent in permitting this unsafe condition to remain for a period of 5 years, and that by the exercise of reasonable care it could have provided suitable drains and sewers to carry away the water.
. The defendant contended that it had done everything humanly possible, within its power and means, to remedy this condition. Several engineers testified that a spring existed on the grounds of the Hill School, located on the high ground on the north side of High Street at this point; that drains had been constructed from the spring
After hearing oral argument of counsel and reviewing the entire record, we are not convinced that the verdict was against the law, the evidence, or the weight of the evidence, because there was sufficient credible testimony upon which to base a verdict for the plaintiff. The question of the defendant’s duty and responsibility to maintain its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition, and plaintiff’s duty as a passenger, were submitted to the jury in a charge, to which no exceptions were taken, and we see no reason for disturbing the verdict which, in our opinion, is sustained by the law and the evidence. It was a question of fact for the jury.
And now, February 23, 1935, defendant’s motion for a new trial is hereby overruled and refused.
From Aaron S. Swartz, Jr., Norristown.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.