Manross v. City of Oil City

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Manross v. City of Oil City, 178 Pa. 276 (Pa. 1896)
35 A. 959; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1163
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Pee, Sterrett, Williams

Manross v. City of Oil City

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam,

There appears to be nothing in this record that would have warranted the withdrawal of the case from the jury. The testimony was quite sufficient to justify its submission to them on the questions of defendant’s negligence and the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff; and that was accordingly done with instructions which appear to be adequate and substantially correct. The result was a verdict, impliedly finding that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, and that she was not chargeable with any negligence which contributed thereto. Plaintiff’s right to recover was thus established by competent evidence and her damages were assessed.

We find nothing in the specifications of error that would warrant a reversal of the judgment; nor do we think there is anything in either of them that requires special notice.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Lizzie Manross v. The City of Oil City
Cited By
21 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Negligence — Municipalities—Accumulation of ice on sidewalk. In an action against a city to recover damages for personal injuries caused by falling on an accumulation of ice on a sidewalk, even if it was not shown that the ice had formed into hills or ridges, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff wall not be disturbed where there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that ice had accumulated on the sidewalk at the mouth of an alley; that the accumulation would not have taken place if the gutter had been properly cleaned and opened, and that the plaintiff had not passed over the sidewalk for three weeks, and knew nothing of its condition.