Dunn v. City of Scranton

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Dunn v. City of Scranton

83 Pa. Super. 330, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 134

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 5, 1924

DocketAppeals, 8 and 9

StatusPublished

This text of 83 Pa. Super. 330 (Dunn v. City of Scranton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunn v. City of Scranton, 83 Pa. Super. 330, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 134 (Pa. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam,

These appeals are from judgments in actions to recover for injuries to one of appellees by a fall on a sidewalk, which the verdict establishes was negligently maintained by the city. Appellant’s brief states the single question for review, in three forms, which, in substance, is whether the record shows notice to the city of the defect. Pursuant to Rule 50, we confine our consideration of the record to that point, (Garvey v. Thompson, 268 Pa. 353, 355; Kasson v. Water Co., 81 Pa. Superior Ct. 11, 15); the supplemental statement of question involved, filed in the supplemental brief, is based on assumptions of fact not presented by the record; we therefore cannot consider it. As the refusal to give binding instructions is the basis of the assignments of error, we take the testimony most favorable to appellees: McDonald v. Pittsburgh, 278 Pa. 485. There was sufficient evidence of notice to the city.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cubiam,

These appeals are from judgments in actions to recover for injuries to one of appellees by a fall on a sidewalk, which the verdict establishes was negligently maintained by the city. Appellant’s brief states the single question for review, in three forms, which, in substance, is whether the record shows notice to the city of the defect. Pursuant to Rule 50, we confine our consideration of the record to that point, (Garvey v. Thompson, 268 Pa. 353, 355; Kasson v. Water Co., 81 Pa. Superior Ct. 11, 15); the supplemental statement of question involved, filed in the supplemental brief, is based on assumptions of fact not presented by the record; we therefore cannot consider it. As the refusal to give binding instructions is the basis of the assignments of error, we take the testimony most favorable to appellees: McDonald v. Pittsburgh, 278 Pa. 485. There was sufficient evidence of notice to the city.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 Pa. Super. 330, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-city-of-scranton-pasuperct-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack