Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CRAWFORD v. ROCHESTER BOROUGH (12/28/56)

December 28, 1956

CRAWFORD
v.
ROCHESTER BOROUGH, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 173, April T., 1956, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Sept. T., 1954, No. 250, in case of Earl Crawford et ux. v. Borough of Rochester. Judgment reversed.

COUNSEL

Robert L. Orr, for appellant.

A. G. Helbling, with him Thomas C. Mannix, for appellees.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.

Author: Wright

[ 182 Pa. Super. Page 410]

OPINION BY WRIGHT, J.

Rose Crawford and her husband instituted suit in trespass against the Borough of Rochester to recover damages for injuries suffered by the wife in a fall. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. Defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. was overruled, and judgment was entered on the verdict. This appeal followed.

[ 182 Pa. Super. Page 411]

The factual situation and the question involved appear in the following excerpt from a stipulation of the parties under our Rule 41:

"Plaintiff, Rose Crawford, sustained physical injuries as a result of a fall which occurred when she tripped on a hole in the surface of Brighton Avenue, a State Highway in the Borough of Rochester, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The hole was located upon a portion of said highway between yellow lines painted by the Borough to indicate a pedestrian crossing. The yellow lines lead from the easterly side to the westerly side of Brighton Avenue at an intersection with another street. The hole was from three inches to four inches deep, six to seven inches wide and about eight inches in length ...

"The jury's verdict establishes the fact that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. It also establishes the fact of negligence on the part of the defendant in permitting the hole to remain in the pavement if as a matter of law, the defendant, Borough, had any duty to repair. The sole question involved in this appeal is, - 'Where a Borough Street is also a State Highway and the Borough designates a crosswalk for pedestrians at an intersection, is it the legal duty of the Borough to see that the space designated as a crosswalk is kept in a safe condition for pedestrian traffic'".

The State Highway Law*fn1 was recently interpreted by our Supreme Court in Stevens v. Reading Street Railway Co., 384 Pa. 390, 121 A.2d 128. The real issue before us is whether or not the instant appeal is controlled by the Stevens case. There, as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.