Readdy v. Bor. of Shamokin
Readdy v. Bor. of Shamokin
Opinion of the Court
The assignments of error, from four to nine inclusive, do not conform to the Rules of Court, and will not be considered.
The first assignment alleges that the court below erred in not directing a verdict for defendant. The court was not asked for such an instruction, and if such a point had been submitted it would not have availed, as the case could not have been withdrawn from the jury. Nor is error perceived in the answer to the defendant’s second point, nor in the general charge. See second and third assignments. The question was fairly submitted to the jury whether the break in the sidewalk, variously estimated by the witnesses at from nine to fifteen inches, constituted a dangerous sidewalk, and whether it Avas negligence on the part of the borough authorities to permit it to remain in this condition. The jury have found the negligence, and, as the case was submitted under proper instructions as to the law, the verdict and judgment must stand.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- JOHN READDY v. BOR. OF SHAMOKIN
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. A specification of error to the admission of evidence which does not set out the evidence admitted under the offer, and show that a bill of exceptions was sealed, is not in accordance with Rule XXIV. of the Supreme Court, and will not be considered. 2. A specification that the court erred in not directing the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, under all the evidence in the case, will not be sustained when no request was made in the court below that such instruction should be given. 3. In an action against a borough to recover damages for injuries received by the plaintiff's wife by falling upon a defective pavement, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for any temporary or permanent loss of earning power of the wife, and his expenses incurred for her medical attendance. 4. Where there was evidence that there was an offset of from nine to fifteen inches in depth in the sidewalk, it was proper to submit to the jury to find whether the sidewalk was in a dangerous condition, so that it was negligence in the borough to permit it to remain so.