Hammer v. City of Philadelphia

Decision Date28 January 1932
Docket Number262-1931
Citation158 A. 659,104 Pa.Super. 119
PartiesHammer, Appellant, v. City of Philadelphia
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Argued October 9, 1931

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of C. P., No. 2 Philadelphia County, December T., 1928, No. 15436, in the case of William D. Hammer v. City of Philadelphia.

Trespass to recover for personal injuries. Before Stern, P. J.,

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

Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $ 500. Subsequently, on motion the Court entered judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was the entry of judgment.

Affirmed.

Paul Reilly, for appellant.

Ward C Henry, and with him G. Coe Farrier, Assistant City Solicitors, and Augustus Trask Ashton, City Solicitor.

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

OPINION

Cunningham, J.

In October, 1928, the City of Philadelphia was constructing a subway under a portion of South Broad Street and in connection therewith laid down temporary sidewalks, constructed of two-inch planks. At a point on the east sidewalk about four feet from the curb and opposite the south building line of Chestnut Street there was a manhole, approximately three feet in diameter, leading into a conduit of a public utility and covered with an iron disc, securely fastened. A circular hole, corresponding in size with the disc, was cut out of the planking in order to afford access to it. This left the upper edges of the planks two inches above the level of the iron cover; the edges were then beveled around the opening, producing a sloping approach from the upper side of the planks to the cover of the manhole.

Nearly three months later, December 21, 1928, the plaintiff, familiar with the locality and accompanied by a friend, was walking north on the east side of Broad, between Sansom and Chestnut, at a time when the sidewalk was crowded with pedestrians; as they approached the corner of Chestnut plaintiff stepped, with his left foot, on the beveled edge of the planking surrounding the manhole; his ankle turned and his foot slid across the iron covering; a fracture of one of the ankle bones was suffered.

The trial of his action against the city for damages resulted in a verdict in his favor for $ 500; the court below, in an opinion by Stern, P. J., granted defendant's motion for judgment in its favor n. o. v. and plaintiff has appealed.

No material facts were in controversy and the only variation in the testimony was in the manner in which the witnesses, called by the opposing parties, characterized the construction around the manhole. Appellant's testimony was to the effect that the edges had been "leveled off in a crude way, but still there was a very rough edge there." Another said, "It looked to me as if it was beveled with probably one of those slab hatchets chopping it down." The city's inspector of construction testified, "We beveled the edges so as to produce about a forty-five degree angle, so as to produce safe conditions as far as possible."

Appellant's account of the accident reads: "A friend of mine and I were going to lunch, north on Broad Street, he on the house side and I on the gutter side. Of course, there was a holiday crowd, just before Christmas it was. It is always bad there and going north and south on Broad Street, and east and west on Chestnut Street about the same time. We were milling around in the crowd, trying to go west on Chestnut Street. Just as I got to the corner, I went down as if I was shot. Of course, my friend -- I could not fall to the ground -- held me. I had hold of his arm, anyway. I could not fall all the way on account of the crowd. I just seemed to shoot along and I found out later that I turned my ankle in this hole and slid to the opposite side. Q. Could you see the hole before you stepped into it? A. No, on account of the people my face -- . . . . By the Court: Q. Exactly how did you fall in that place, in that hole? I did not understand that. A. I probably stepped on the edge and turned my ankle and slid. Q. Stepped on the edge -- you mean, on the board? A. Yes. Q. You cannot call that a fall into a hole. You mean, you got your foot on the edge of the board? A. Turned my ankle, slid on the edge. Q. On the edge of the board? A. Probably half over and half not. Q. You say you probably did. Do you know what you did, what happened? A. I just turned my ankle on the edge of that hole and slid across the hole. Q. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Schentzel v. Philadelphia National League Club
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • April 14, 1953
    ... ... Ass'n, 3 Cal.2d 725, 46 P.2d 144; Brown v. San ... Francisco Ball Club, Inc., 99 Cal.App.2d 484, 222 P.2d ... 19; Keys v. Alamo City Baseball Co., Tex.Civ.App., ... 150 S.W.2d 368; Williams v. Houston Baseball ... Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 874; ... Ratcliff v. San Diego ... conception of a reasonable standard, formulated ... retrospectively, cannot be a legal basis for a finding of ... negligence. Hammer v. City of Philadelphia, 104 ... Pa.Super. 119, 122-123, 158 A. 659.’ ... No ... claim is made that the screen was defective in ... ...
  • Blake v. Fried
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • March 17, 1953
    ... ... 14 feet high and fell into grandstand. The Court of Common ... Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County, at No. 5283, March Term, ... 1951 (tried in C.P. No. 4), entered judgments for plaintiffs, ... retrospectively, cannot be a legal basis for a finding of ... negligence. Hammer v. Philadelphia, 104 Pa.Super ... 119, 122-123, 158 A. 659 ... The ... James case ... ...
  • City of Phoenix v. Weedon, 5208
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • December 26, 1950
    ...is recognized as the law in other jurisdictions. See Ford v. City of Kinsley, 141 Kan. 877, 44 P.2d 255; Hammer v. City of Philadelphia, 104 Pa.Super. 119, 158 A. 659; Johnson v. City of Ames, 181 Iowa 65, 162 N.W. 858; City of Dayton v. Fox, 254 Ky. 51, 70 S.W.2d 961; McQuillin, Municipal ......
  • Roslik v. City of Pittsburgh
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • July 15, 1944
    ... ... day, but it is not an insurer of the safety of those who ... travel upon its thoroughfares. Good v. Philadelphia, ... 335 Pa. 13, 6 A.2d 101; Schramm v. Pittsburgh, 337 ... Pa. 65, 9 A.2d 373; Hammer v. Philadelphia, 104 ... Pa.Super. 119, 158 A. 659. When ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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