Walsh v. West Pittston Borough

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Walsh v. West Pittston Borough

105 A. 82, 262 Pa. 210, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 622

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 17, 1918·No. Appeal, No. 61·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The sole complaint of the appellant is of the reference by the trial judge in his charge to the jury to the ulti[211]*211mate liability of the owner of the lot abutting on the alleged defective sidewalk. This reference was uncalled for and may be regarded as out of place: Fleming v. Wilmerding Boro., 223 Pa. 295; but we cannot say it was reversible error in view of the general charge, of which no complaint is made, and of the instruction in that portion of it, which is the subject of the second assignment, that the liability of the property owner was not involved in the case. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The sole complaint of the appellant is of the reference by the trial judge in his charge to the jury to the ulti[211]*211mate liability of the owner of the lot abutting on the alleged defective sidewalk. This reference was uncalled for and may be regarded as out of place: Fleming v. Wilmerding Boro., 223 Pa. 295; but we cannot say it was reversible error in view of the general charge, of which no complaint is made, and of the instruction in that portion of it, which is the subject of the second assignment, that the liability of the property owner was not involved in the case. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Walsh v. West Pittston Borough, 105 A. 82, 262 Pa. 210, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 622 (Pa. 1918).

Pincite

105 A. 82 (Walsh v. West Pittston Borough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related