Erie City v. Schwingle

• Decision Date: 01 October 1853
• Parties: Erie City versus Schwingle.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

22 Pa. 384

Erie City versus Schwingle.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Erie county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Babbitt, for plaintiff in error.

Walker and Thompson, for defendants in error.—That a corporation, municipal or otherwise, may be sued for acts improperly committed by its direction or for neglect of duty, reference was made to the case of Dean v. New Milford Township, 5 W. & Ser.

545; 15 Johnson 253, Bartlett v. Crozier; Angell & Ames on Corp. 382-3; 4 Ser. & R. 6; 3 Hill 331, Baily v. Mayer, &c. 10 Barr 95, Commissioners v. Wood.

It was further contended that it was not necessary to set out in the narr. the Act creating the borough. That a borough is a known political institution, and the Act creating it need not be recited in the narr.

But it was contended that it was sufficiently referred to in stating that by the laws of the Commonwealth in that behalf provided, the defendants had the charge and care and were bound to keep the streets in the borough safe, and in good repair, &c. It was said that this was sufficient even before verdict, but that after verdict it was certainly sufficient: 4 Ser. & R. 6.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by BLACK, C. J.

The principal question in this case is, whether a city corporation, bound by its charter to keep its streets in repair, is liable for an injury occasioned by neglect to do so.

Every highway or thoroughfare, which the public has a right to use, must be kept, by somebody, in such order that it can be safely used, and if any serious injury happens to an individual in consequence of its bad condition, those who are bound to repair must answer in damages. In Beatty v Gilmore, (4 Harris 463,) a person who had dug a hole in the pavement, and violated his duty by leaving it exposed, was held liable to a party who fell into it and broke his leg. In Bartlett v. Crozier, (15 Johnson 250,) an action was sustained against an overseer of the highway, who had the means of repairing the roads in his hands, but neglected to do it, and caused a loss to the plaintiff. In Townsend v. The Susquehanna S. R. Co., (6 Johnson 90,) a private corporation which had failed to keep up one of its bridges, was held liable for a similar loss. In Dean v. New Milford Township, (5 W. & Ser. 545,) it was decided that damages might be recovered against a township for the injury sustained in consequence of the non-repair of a public road. And in the Commissioners of Kensington v. Wood, (10 Barr 93,) it was said by this Court that the liability of the corporation, for any injury arising from the unskilful, inartificial, or improper manner, in which the paving and grading of a street was done, could not be controverted. To these authorities may be added the case of Pittsburgh v. The Owners of the Steamer Mary Ann, (10 Harris 54, &c.) in which we held that the city corporation, having the care of a port, was responsible for the loss of a vessel which had been wrecked for want of a safe landing-place. I have cited these several cases to show that a party bound to repair, whether it be an individual, a private corporation, a township, district or city, must perform the duty or pay, in an action on the case, for all injuries to persons and property, which may be caused by the omission....