Schwartz v. City of Philadelphia
| Decision Date | 14 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 32,33-1931 |
| Citation | 157 A. 377,103 Pa.Super. 362 |
| Parties | Schwartz et ux. v. City of Philadelphia, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 8, 1931
Appeals by defendant from judgments of C. P., No. 2 Philadelphia County, September T., 1929, No. 3161, in the case of Clara Schwartz and Christian Schwartz v. City of Philadelphia.
Trespass to recover for personal injuries. Before Gordon, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for Christian Schwartz in the sum of $ 819 and for Clara Schwartz in the sum of $ 1,000 and judgments entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were refusal of defendant's motions for binding instructions and for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Affirmed.
Lewis J. Finestone, and with him G. Coe Farrier, Assistant City Solicitors, and Augustus Trask Ashton, City Solicitor, for appellant.
Howard R. Detweiler, and with him Robert M. Bernstein, for appellees.
Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Cunningham and Baldrige, JJ.
The city appeals from judgments in favor of a husband and wife for injury to the wife sustained in walking down a stairway maintained by the city to give access from Wyoming Avenue to Fisher's Lane, a street on a lower level at the foot of the stairway. The negligence shown was the failure to remove ridges of snow and ice from the stairs.
The only complaint is that the learned court below refused to direct verdicts for defendant or to enter judgments n. o. v. on the ground of contributory negligence. That question was for the jury.
The stairway was uncovered, made of wood, about 5 feet wide guarded on each side by a barrier composed of 3 boards, each 5 or 6 inches wide, (judging from the photographs) separated by spaces of about the same width, having on top a timber which the evidence describes as 4 inches by 4 inches, set with the angle upwards. Mrs. Schwartz walked down the stairs on the right side looking where she was walking; her husband was on her left. Notwithstanding the care exercised, she stepped on a ridge of snow or ice, slipped and was injured. The burden of the city's argument here is that if she had kept her hand on the top timber, which the city calls a handrail, she might not have been injured and that the failure to use it convicts her of contributory negligence, as matter of law. She states that the timber on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial