Wyman v. City of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Wyman v. City of Philadelphia, 175 Pa. 117 (Pa. 1896)
34 A. 621; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1218
Dean, Fell, Geeen, McCollum, Mitchell

Wyman v. City of Philadelphia

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The learned judge of the court below submitted this case to the jury in precise accord with our decisions in this class of cases and the jury found for the plaintiff the matter of fact thus submitted. The jury was carefully instructed that the city was not liable for a mere ordinary slippery condition of the sidewalk resulting from the sudden formation of ice, but that if the snow and ice existed in ridges and little hills and the pavement was permitted to remain in that condition for a length of time sufficient to charge the city with knowledge of the situation, and the obstruction was not removed, there might be liabilityfor an accident happening in those circumstances. There was plenty of testimony to establish the plaintiff’s contentions in this respect, and it was therefore the duty of the court below to submit the case to the jury, which was done in a very careful. and cautious manner. The liability cannot be removed by a mere notice to the owner.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Alfred Wyman v. The City of Philadelphia
Cited By
9 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Negligence — Municipalities—Ice on sidewalk. A municipality is not liable for an injury caused by the mere ordinary slippery condition of a sidewalk resulting from the sudden, formation of ice, but the city may be liable if the snow and ice exists in ridges and little hills and the pavement is permitted to remain in that condition for a length of time sufficient to charge the city with knowlédge of the situation, and the obstruction is not removed. In such case the city is not relieved from liability because it notified the owner of the sidewalk to remove the ice.