Lower Macungie Township v. Merkhoffer
| Decision Date | 25 March 1872 |
| Citation | 71 Pa. 276 |
| Parties | Lower Macungie Township <I>versus</I> Merkhoffer. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before THOMPSON, C. J., SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ. AGNEW, J., at Nisi Prius.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: No. 412, to January Term 1870.
E. Albright and J. D. Stiles, for plaintiff in error.—If the shying of the mule contributed to the injury, unless the plaintiff used more than ordinary care, he cannot recover: 2 Hilliard on Torts 403. A township is not liable for the neglect of supervisors: Yealy v. Fink, 7 Wright 212; White v. Phillipston, 10 Met. 108; Riddle v. Proprietors of The Locks and Canals, 7 Mass. 187; Mower v. Leicester, 9 Id. 247; Biglow v. Randolph, 14 Gray 541; Angell & Ames on Corp., §§ 23, 24, 35, 629; Fowle v. Alexandria, 3 Pet. 409; 2 Kent's Com. 221; Merchants' Bank v. Cook, 4 Pick. 405; Russell v. Devon, 2 T. R. 667; Hawkes v. Kennebeck, 7 Mass. 462; Brewer v. New Gloucester, 14 Id. 216; Adams v. Wiscasset Bank, 1 Greenl. 361.
F. A. R. Baldwin and C. M. Runk, for defendant in error, as to liability of municipal corporations for injuries from defective highways, cited Humphreys v. Armstrong Co., 6 P. F. Smith 209; 2 Hilliard on Torts 403-405; Palmer v. Andover, 2 Cush. 600; Howard v. N. Bridgewater, 16 Pick. 189; Dean v. New Milford, 5 W. & S. 545; Act of June 13th 1836, Pamph. L. 556, 2 Br. Purd. 1276, pl. 43.
The judgment of the court was entered March 25th 1872.
We have considered the bills of exception in this case, and find them free of error. That the township was answerable in its corporate capacity for the injury complained of in this case, in the absence of satisfying proof of negligence on part of the plaintiff, is a well settled rule in this state. The finding of the jury has acquitted him of that, and he was consequently entitled to a recovery compensating his injury. It was not a defence to the township to show that by careful driving accident might have been avoided at the place in question. That would fall far short of what is the purpose of a public highway. It must be kept in such repair that even skittish animals may be employed without risk of danger on it, by reason of the condition of the road. The law provides the means for repairing the roads, and if it be not done, and injury ensue, it would be wrong that individuals should suffer for the default of the public officers. The law does not cast this burthen upon them. The testimony rejected, and of which the last assignment of error is predicated, is not sustained.
Judgment is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Closser v. The Township of Washington
...place, as will require the erection of a barrier, in order to secure a reasonable degree of safety for public travel: Lower Macungie Twp. v. Merkhoffer, 71 Pa. 276. jury having found all the material questions in the case in favor of the plaintiff, and nothing appearing in the record that c......
-
Stringert v. Ross Township
... ... -- The case was for the jury: ... Sutter v. Young Twp., 130 Pa. 72; Lower Macungie ... Twp. v. Merkhoffer, 71 Pa. 276; Humphreys v ... Armstrong County, 56 Pa. 204; Dean ... ...
-
Musselman v. Hatfield Borough
... ... of ordinary care in the use of the public highways: Lower ... Macungie Twp. v. Merkhoffer, 71 Pa. 276; Erie v ... Schwingle, 22 ... ...
-
Merriman v. Phillipsburg Borough
... ... Atwater, 88 Pa. 496; ... Corbalis v. Newberry Township, 132 Pa. 9; ... Burrell Township v. Uncapher, 117 Pa. 353; Scott ... nship v. Montgomery, 95 Pa. 444; Lower Macungie ... Township v. Merkhoffer, 71 Pa. 276; Lower Windsor ... ...