McCormick v. Allegheny County
McCormick v. Allegheny County
Opinion of the Court
When this case was tried and finally disposed of in the court below, Clark v. Allegheny County, 260 Pa. 199, had not been argued before us. What we there decided is conclusive óf the correctness of the view of the learned trial judge, that the duty rested upon the county to keep the Banksville road in proper repair.
As to the contention of the appellant that a demand ought to have been made upon it for the payment of the damages claimed by the appellee before an action could be maintained against it to recover them, nothing more heed be said than that, as they were unliquidated, the case is within the rule that the action is itself a sufficient demand. The other questions raised by the appellant are sufficiently answered in the opinion of the learned court below overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 14 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Counties—Boads—Repairs—Acts of June 26, 1895, P. L. 8S6, and May 11, 1911, P. L. 21/4 — Prior demand. 1. The Acts of June 26, 1895, P. L. 336, and May 11, 1911, P. L. 244, relieving township authorities from all duty and responsibility in respect to the care, maintenance and repair of all roads improved under the provisions of such acts and making such roads county roads, have the effect of imposing liability on the county for injuries occasioned by breach of the duty to repair; and this includes injuries on the sidewalks of such roads. 2. In an action to enforce such liability, it is not necessary to show a prior demand for damages, inasmuch as the damages are unliquidated. The case is within the rule that the action is itself a sufficient demand.