Reading City v. Reiner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Reading City v. Reiner

31 A. 357, 167 Pa. 41, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 859

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 18, 1895

DocketAppeal, No. 337

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 31 A. 357 (Reading City v. Reiner) 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.

Bluebook

Reading City v. Reiner, 31 A. 357, 167 Pa. 41, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 859 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The dangerous character of the areaway extending into the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s premises was settled in McNerney v. City of Reading, 150 Pa. 611. McNerney who was injured by falling into the areaway recovered damages for his injury from the city in that case. The city now seeks reimbursement from the owner of the property. The building with the unguarded opening in the sidewalk was built by her predecessor in title, and was in the actual possession of a tenant at the time the injury happened. It is probable the city could have recovered from the tenant in possession; but the owner is also liable, as is well shown by the learned judge of the court below; and we affirm this judgment upon his opinion given upon the disposition of the motion for judgment non obstante, on the points reserved.

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

Per Curiam,

The dangerous character of the areaway extending into the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s premises was settled in McNerney v. City of Reading, 150 Pa. 611. McNerney who was injured by falling into the areaway recovered damages for his injury from the city in that case. The city now seeks reimbursement from the owner of the property. The building with the unguarded opening in the sidewalk was built by her predecessor in title, and was in the actual possession of a tenant at the time the injury happened. It is probable the city could have recovered from the tenant in possession; but the owner is also liable, as is well shown by the learned judge of the court below; and we affirm this judgment upon his opinion given upon the disposition of the motion for judgment non obstante, on the points reserved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A. 357, 167 Pa. 41, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reading-city-v-reiner-pa-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack