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.

JAMES KING v. CITY PHILADELPHIA (06/26/87)

decided: June 26, 1987.

JAMES KING, APPELLANT
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of James King v. City of Philadelphia, No. 957, August Term, 1984.

COUNSEL

Robert M. Lipshutz, for appellant.

Claudia M. Tesoro, Chief Assistant City Solicitor, with her, Barbara W. Mather, City Solicitor, and Barbara R. Axelrod, Divisional Deputy in Charge of Appeals, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Barry, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.

Author: Barry

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 127]

This appeal results from an order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas which sustained the preliminary objections of the appellee herein, City

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 128]

    of Philadelphia, filed with respect to the complaint of the plaintiff/appellant, James King.

On October 2, 1984, the appellant filed a complaint in the trial court alleging physical injuries stemming from an incident roughly two years before. Appellant alleged specifically that while he, a prisoner, was "in the process of being transported from the Philadelphia Sheriff's cell rooms, plaintiff was handcuffed to a crutch and forced to walk up some steps, causing plaintiff to fall down the steps and injure himself." Complaint, Averment No. 4. Appellant further averred that, due to the fall, he "suffered two pinched nerves, neck and head damage, a concussion, and diffused and continuous pain in the right side of his body. . . ." Id. No. 5.

With respect to fault, the complaint also avers a variety of intentional and negligent acts on the part of the City. Among these was the allegation that the City had "[i]ntentionally, maliciously, carelessly, recklessly and/or negligently endanger[ed] plaintiff and caus[ed] him harm by handcuffing [him] to the crutch and forcing him to ascend stairs in said condition, in disregard of the clear danger of harm to plaintiff by doing so[.]" Id. No. 7(b). Further, appellant alleged mis- or malfeasance on the part of the City by virtue of its

[f]ailure to maintain proper care, custody and control of real property in the custody of the defendant; to wit, its failure to provide a safe means for a person on crutches to go from one building level to another without stairs in the aforementioned cell room, in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. ยง 8542(b)(3).

Complaint, Averment No. 7(h). Appellant also averred that, due to all of this conduct, the City violated his civil rights and was thus ...


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.