Gleason v. Housing Authority of City of Pittsburgh
| Decision Date | 27 May 1946 |
| Docket Number | 3855 |
| Parties | Gleason, Guardian, et al., Appellants, v. Pittsburgh Housing Authority |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 28, 1946
Appeals, Nos. 37 and 38, March T., 1946, from judgment of C.P; Allegheny Co., April T., 1945, No. 1665, in case of George Gleason, Guardian, et al. v. Housing Authority of City of Pittsburgh. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before ELLENBOGEN, J.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Clyde P. Bailey, with him Bailey & Critchfield, for appellants.
J Roy Dickie, with him Hamilton A. Robinson and Dickie, Robinson & McCamey, for appellee.
Before MAXEY, C.J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES JJ.
This is an action in trespass by George Gleason, as natural guardian of William Ross Gleason, a minor, and by George Gleason and Kathryn N. Gleason, as parents in their own right, to recover for personal injuries sustained by the boy when he fell from a sliding board erected by The Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh in connection with one of its housing units known as the Arlington Heights Housing Project.
At the time of the injuries, plaintiffs occupied an apartment in defendant's Arlington Heights Project. To the rear of the building in which they resided was located a concrete playground area provided by the defendant, equipped with various playground facilities including a stationary sliding board of the type usually provided for the use of children. Its highest point was six feet above the cement playground surface in which it was anchored. On November 13, 1944, the minor plaintiff, then four years old, fell from the top of the sliding board to the cement surface below, fracturing his skull. Neddie Gleason, brother of the injured and only witness to the manner in which the injuries occurred, testified that minor plaintiff was in the act of climbing up the sliding board itself when he fell; that he did not go up the steps but climbed up the board; that as he reached the top of the sliding board, on his hands and knees, he turned around to look at the witness, who was at the bottom at the time, lost his balance and fell over the side to the cement surface below.
It is admitted that the sliding board was of the standard pattern in general use; an approved appliance for outdoor recreation and diversion of children; and that it was not defective in any respect. The negligence alleged was erection of the slide over a cement instead of a dirt surface, failure of defendant to provide an attendant, and failure to erect fences to exclude children when an attendant was not available. A motion for compulsory nonsuit and a point for binding instructions in defendant's favor were refused. The case was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict for defendant. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was denied, and these appeals followed.
The alleged trial errors are immaterial. On the evidence presented a compulsory nonsuit should have been entere...
To continue reading
Request your trial