Gilmore v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R.

25 A. 774, 154 Pa. 375, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 897
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 30, 1893·No. Appeal, No. 172·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We find no error in this record. The stairway leading from the bridge to defendant’s station where the accident occurred was at that time and for some days previously in the use and control of the defendant company and open for all persons going to and from its station. The deceased had used it in order to reach the station to buy his ticket. The defendant may, therefore, be said to have invited the public to make use [378]*378of the bridge, and it was its duty to see that it was in a reasonably safe condition. We do not think the doctrine in regard to independent contractors applies to the facts of this case. While there was some conflict of testimony, the facts were for the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gilmore v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R., 25 A. 774, 154 Pa. 375, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 897 (Pa. 1893).

25 A. 774 (Gilmore v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lineaweaver Et Ux. v. Wanamaker
149 A. 91 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Cotant v. Boone Suburban Railway Co.
69 L.R.A. 982 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)