Norristown v. Moyer
| Decision Date | 09 February 1871 |
| Citation | 67 Pa. 355 |
| Parties | Norristown <I>versus</I> Moyer. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, and WILLIAMS, JJ. SHARSWOOD, J., at Nisi Prius
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county: Of July Term 1870, No. 128.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
G. W. Rogers (with whom was J. L. Allabaugh), for plaintiffs in error.—The obstruction of the road by plaintiff with his cart was a nuisance and negligence by plaintiff: Stinson v. Gardiner, 42 Maine 248; Hounsell v. Smith, 7 C. B. N. S. 731; Gillis v. Penna. Railroad, 9 P. F. Smith 129. The pole was not erected by the defendants or their agents, and therefore they were not liable: Thayer v. Bastin, 19 Pick. 471; West Chester v. Apple, 11 Casey 284. They would be answerable only to the traveller if the passage were obstructed: Havard v. N. Bridgewater, 16 Pick. 189. If the defendants were bound to know the dangerous character of the pole, so was the plaintiff, and he ran the risk at his peril: Farnem v. Concord, 2 N. Hamp. R. 292; Whitehead v. Philadelphia, 2 Philad. R. 99; Detroit v. Blakeley, (Michigan) 9; A. L. Reg. N. S., Nos. 11, 670. They cited also 2 Redfield on Railways 373; 1 Id. 252.
C. Hunsicker and B. M. Boyer, for defendant in error.—A municipal corporation must keep the streets in repair, and are liable for neglect, whether wilful or otherwise: Erie v. Schwingle 10 Harris 384; Winpenny v. Philadelphia, 15 P. F. Smith 135; Lancaster Turnpike v. Rogers, 2 Barr 114; Dean v. New Milford, 5 W. & S. 545; Pittsburg v. Grier, 10 Harris 55.
The opinion was delivered, February 9th 1871.
The offers of testimony by the defendants below to prove that that part of Washington street where the plaintiff was injured by the falling of the pole was not generally travelled, and that the spot on which he was at the time of the injury was a part of the street upon which the Philadelphia and Germantown Railroad Company had located their road and switches, and that the plaintiff was engaged at the time in labor connected with the railroad, was properly rejected. It was not pretended that the street had not been opened and graded by the town authorities and under their jurisdiction; and because a portion of it had been awarded as an easement to the railroad, the authorities themselves were not relieved from the duty of seeing that man-traps or dangerous erections were not kept upon it, and they were bound to remove them. The doctrine applicable to this part of the case may be found fully discussed in Erie City v. Schwingle, 10 Harris 384.
The general charge of the learned judge was so lucid in its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feeley v. United States
...at least to the Pennsylvania courts. The cases of public and private benevolence involving medical care are also on point. In Norristown v. Moyer, 67 Pa. 355 (1871), the Supreme Court held that there should be no diminishment in damages for the monetary aid that the plaintiff received from ......
-
Wheeler v. City of Fort Dodge
...It was there said to be immaterial that the pole was set in a place or position where it did not actually obstruct travel. Norristown v. Moyer, 67 Pa. 355. A bay projecting into the street space from the upper story of an abutting building is held by the Pennsylvania court to be a nuisance ......
-
Kraut v. Frankford & S. P. City Pass. Ry. Co.
...Zappe, 153 Pa. 498. Where an obstruction is of long duration, constructive notice is presumed: McLaughlin v. Corry, 77 Pa. 109; Norristown v. Moyer, 67 Pa. 355; North v. Arnold, 119 Pa. 380; Davis v. Corry, 154 Pa. 598. The opinion of a witness as to the dangerous character of a place is co......
-
Northeastern Nash Automobile Company, Inc. v. Allen Bartlett
... ... charitable subscriptions. Citizens Gas. etc., Co. v ... Whipple, 32 Ind.App. 203, 69 N.E. 557; Norristown v ... Moyer, 67 Pa. 355. The broad rule is correctly stated ... thus in Weber v. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 36 N.J.L ... 213, "A person ... ...