Hardiman v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.

Citation339 Pa. 79,14 A.2d 72
Decision Date24 June 1940
Docket Number98
PartiesHardiman v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, Appellant
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Argued March 26, 1940.

Appeal, No. 98, March T., 1940, from judgment of C.P Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1937, No. 1726, in case of Barbara Hardiman v. Pittsburgh Railways Company. Judgment affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before McCANN, P.J., specially presiding.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict for plaintiff in sum of $4,750 and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was refusal of judgment n.o.v.

The judgment is affirmed.

Alan D Riester, with him J. R. McNary, for appellant.

A. M Oliver, with him Dipple & Oliver, for appellee.

Before SCHAFFER, C.J., MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, BARNES and PATTERSON, JJ.

OPINION

MR. MAXEY, JUSTICE.

Plaintiff, aged sixty-seven years at the time of the injury complained of, was injured by a fall when her foot caught in a depression in the paving as she was crossing the intersection of Liberty Avenue and Seventh Street, Pittsburgh. The accident happened at a point in the street near the rail of the second track plaintiff was about to cross. Defendant company was obliged to keep the pave in repair at that point. Its contention is that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and that the court in banc should have entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict of $4,750 awarded plaintiff by a jury after trial.

The accident happened at about 5:20 p.m. on October 9, 1936. Plaintiff waited at the south curb of Liberty Avenue until the traffic signal showed green and she then entered the cross-walk. A part of this intersection is occupied by the defendant's double car tracks running east and west on Liberty Avenue, and by two tracks which curve from the north on Seventh Street to join those on Liberty Avenue. The space between the rails and tracks is paved with stone blocks which presented a rough and uneven surface at the time of the accident.

Plaintiff testified that she observed several holes or irregularities in the street as she crossed the first of the car tracks. At the inner rail of the second or westbound track she stepped into a depression about three and one-half inches deep, located at a "frog" formed by the intersection of one of the curved rails leading to Seventh Street. Her foot was caught, and she was thrown violently to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. She also testified that she was one of a group of people crossing the street "with the traffic" and she felt her "foot go down into a hole or depression" which she said "held my toe and flung me." Other pedestrians in front of her were so close she "could touch them." A witness for the plaintiff testified that the hole into which plaintiff stepped was 3 3/8 inches in depth.

The duty of a pedestrian to avoid stepping into holes in sidewalks or streets has been frequently stated by this court. In Lerner v. Phila., 221 Pa. 294, 70 A. 755 we said: "Irregularities in grade, unevenness in surface, sharp depressions at crossings, accidental displacement of brick or stone, and many other things which may or may not be defects, but yet sufficient in themselves to cause accident to the unwary, are so common and usual that it is the duty of the pedestrian to be observant of such fact, and not to walk blindly. If...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT