Monongahela Bridge Co. v. Bevard
This text of 11 A. 575 (Monongahela Bridge Co. v. Bevard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The court below was clearly right in all its rulings. The plaintiff, having paid his toll, had a right to expect that the bridge was safe, and that he might walk over it without danger. His previous knowledge of the defective plank in nowise compromised him, for he might justly suppose that the company had in the meantime, discharged its duty by repairing the defect. It was an insurer as against any defect which it could foresee and prevent, and especially as against a defect such as the one in this case, arising from its own neglect; and it cannot avoid responsibility by charging the plaintiff with a knowledge of that negligence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 A. 575, 8 Sadler 479, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monongahela-bridge-co-v-bevard-pa-1887.