Coleman v. City of Scranton

• Decision Date: 18 April 1930
• Docket Number: 5-1930
• Citation: Coleman v. City of Scranton, 99 Pa.Super. 3 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1930)
• Parties: Coleman et ux., Appellant, v. City of Scranton
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

99 Pa.Super. 3

Coleman et ux., Appellant, v. City of Scranton

No. 5-1930

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

April 18, 1930

Argued March 3, 1930.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of C. P., Lackawanna County-1927 No. 1176, in the case of Bertha Coleman and John Coleman v City of Scranton.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Leach, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 559. Subsequently the court on motion entered judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto.

Error assigned was the entry of the judgment.

R. L Levy, and with him P. E. Kilcullen, for appellant. -- A city is not excused from liability for injuries caused by slipping on ice in a street or sidewalk, which has accumulated by reason of a defect in the street or walk or through failure to construct and maintain suitable drainage: Decker v Scranton City, 151 Pa. 241; Manross v. Oil City, 178 Pa. 276.

Charles B. Little, and with him Robert P. Silverstein, City Solicitor, and Albert S. Rosenberg, Assistant City Solicitor, for appellee. -- A municipality is not liable for injuries resulting from the general slipperiness of its streets or sidewalks occasioned by a recent precipitation and freezing of rain or snow: Ingram v. Philadelphia, 35 Pa.Super. 305; Holbert v. Philadelphia, 221 Pa. 266.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Baldrige and Graff, JJ.

OPINION

BALDRIGE, J.

Bertha Coleman, one of the plaintiffs, broke her ankle by falling on an icy sidewalk. This action was brought charging that her injuries were due to the negligence of the defendant city.

The learned court below found that negligence was not proven and entered judgment on a motion n. o. v. for defendant. We find no error in so doing.

The Washington Irving School property faces on Emmet Street, in the City of Scranton, which has a grade of five per cent. There is a stone wall extending the length of the yard which at the eastern division line is about flush with the sidewalk, and as the western boundary line is approached, the wall becomes higher. A curb was placed in front of the wall at the eastern end for a distance of eight feet and within two feet of a paved entrance to the school. That left a two-foot opening in the curb. The plaintiffs maintain that the curb held back the surface water and directed it toward this opening. Mr. Pendel, the engineer called by the plaintiffs, testified that the natural drainage of the school yard and the property back of it was toward Emmet Street and that some of the water would escape through the opening complained of and that a little farther to the east the water would flow on the pavement by natural drainage. Mrs. Coleman, who lives immediately east of the school premises, left her home about four o'clock in the afternoon of December 15, 1926, and went in the direction of the school property. She had walked about ten feet beyond her property line, which would place her at the two-foot opening, when she slipped and fell on some smooth ice which had been covered by a light fall of snow.

It is the duty of a municipality to keep its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition so that pedestrians using them, and exercising care, may do so safely, but a city is not responsible for a slippery condition of the sidewalks caused by recent falling and freezing of rain or snow.

The plaintiffs, in support of their contention that the defendant was guilty of negligence in not requiring the property owner to prevent the drainage of the water on the pavement, call our attention to Decker v. Scranton City, 151 Pa. 241, 25 A. 36, and Holbert v. Philadelphia, 221 Pa. 266, 70 A. 746.

In the former case, the road was in a dangerous condition at the time and the place of the accident, which was attributable to the defective construction of the road, in conjunction with the ice which was negligently allowed by the city to form and remain there.

In the Holbert case, the plaintiff slipped on a pavement that was maintained in a tunnel under an overhead bridge. Owing to the grade of the street, water flowed into the tunnel, where it was permitted to accumulate due to insufficient inlets. The court said, " This danger resulted, therefore, from causes under the control of the city and not from natural causes, such as the recent precipitation and freezing of rain or snow upon ordinary sidewalks."

There is no allegation in this case that there was any defect in the sidewalk or that there were insufficient inlets. Undoubtedly, there was a certain amount of seepage and drainage that under natural conditions must have gotten from time to time on the sidewalk, as it...