Roop v. City of Philadelphia

109 A. 595, 266 Pa. 353, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 572
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 2, 1920·No. Appeal, No. 119·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The complaint of the appellant is of the negligence of the City of Philadelphia in permitting ice to accumulate on one of its paths or sidewalks in Vernon park, at the point where she fell. The path was covered with snow, and the plaintiff testified that after she had fallen she discovex*ed ridges of ice beneath the snow, which caused her to fall. How long the ice had been there did not appear from the testimony, and there was nothing to show that the city had either actual or constructive notice of the icy condition of the path. The verdict for the defendant having been properly directed, the judgment on it is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Roop v. City of Philadelphia, 109 A. 595, 266 Pa. 353, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 572 (Pa. 1920).

109 A. 595 (Roop v. City of Philadelphia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Canfield v. Philadelphia
4 A.2d 605 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Chase v. City of Erie
156 A. 630 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)