Schwartz Et Ux. v. City of Phila.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Schwartz Et Ux. v. City of Phila.

157 A. 377, 103 Pa. Super. 362, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 74

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 8, 1931

DocketAppeals 32 and 33

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A. 377 (Schwartz Et Ux. v. City of Phila.) 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

Schwartz Et Ux. v. City of Phila., 157 A. 377, 103 Pa. Super. 362, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 74 (Pa. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

The city appeals from judgments in favor of a husband and wife for injury to the wife sustained in walking down a stairway maintained by the city to give access from Wyoming Avenue to Fisher’s Lane, a street on a lower level at the foot of the stairway. The negligence shown was the failure to remove ridges of snow and ice from the stairs.

The only complaint is that the learned court below refused to direct verdicts for defendant or to enter judgments n. o. v. on the ground of contributory negligence. That question was for the jury.

The stairway was uncovered, made of wood, about 5 feet wide, guarded on each side by a barrier composed of 3 boards, each 5 or 6 inches wide, (judging from the photographs) separated by spaces of about the same width, having on top a timber which the evidence describes as 4 inches by 4 inches, set with the angle upwards. Mrs. Schwartz walked down the stairs on the right side looking where she was walking; her husband was on her left. Notwithstanding the care exercised, she stepped on a ridge of snow or *364 ice, slipped and was injured. The burden of the city’s argument here is that if she had kept her hand on the top timber, which the city calls a handrail, she might not have been injured and that the failure to use it convicts her of contributory negligence, as matter of law. She states that the timber on the top of the barrier was not a handrail; that it was so large it could not be grasped by the hand; and that, in any event, it was “a big thick railing that ran to a point like that and it was all splintered and I could not put my hand on it.” There are two photographs in the record which show the structure clearly; from our inspection of the photographs, in connection with the evidence of the plaintiff, we cannot hold that the failure to keep her hand on that splintered timber was contributory negligence. The evidence was submitted to the jury in a very clear charge. There is no controlling analogy between plaintiff’s conduct in this case and the failure to .use the handrail on the railway station stairway, (Stevenson v. Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co., 219 Pa. 626) or the handrail intended to assist passengers alighting from a bus (Fordyce v. White Star Bus Lines, 304 Pa. 106) relied on by the city.

The judgments are affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

The city appeals from judgments in favor of a husband and wife for injury to the wife sustained in walking down a stairway maintained by the city to give access from Wyoming Avenue to Fisher’s Lane, a street on a lower level at the foot of the stairway. The negligence shown was the failure to remove ridges of snow and ice from the stairs.

The only complaint is that the learned court below refused to direct verdicts for defendant or to enter judgments n. o. v. on the ground of contributory negligence. That question was for the jury.

The stairway was uncovered, made of wood, about 5 feet wide, guarded on each side by a barrier composed of 3 boards, each 5 or 6 inches wide, (judging from the photographs) separated by spaces of about the same width, having on top a timber which the evidence describes as 4 inches by 4 inches, set with the angle upwards. Mrs. Schwartz walked down the stairs on the right side looking where she was walking; her husband was on her left. Notwithstanding the care exercised, she stepped on a ridge of snow or *364 ice, slipped and was injured. The burden of the city’s argument here is that if she had kept her hand on the top timber, which the city calls a handrail, she might not have been injured and that the failure to use it convicts her of contributory negligence, as matter of law. She states that the timber on the top of the barrier was not a handrail; that it was so large it could not be grasped by the hand; and that, in any event, it was “a big thick railing that ran to a point like that and it was all splintered and I could not put my hand on it.” There are two photographs in the record which show the structure clearly; from our inspection of the photographs, in connection with the evidence of the plaintiff, we cannot hold that the failure to keep her hand on that splintered timber was contributory negligence. The evidence was submitted to the jury in a very clear charge. There is no controlling analogy between plaintiff’s conduct in this case and the failure to .use the handrail on the railway station stairway, (Stevenson v. Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co., 219 Pa. 626) or the handrail intended to assist passengers alighting from a bus (Fordyce v. White Star Bus Lines, 304 Pa. 106) relied on by the city.

The judgments are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A. 377, 103 Pa. Super. 362, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-et-ux-v-city-of-phila-pasuperct-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack