27 A.2d 490 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1942
Argued May 1, 1942. On May 28, 1938, about four-thirty P.M., plaintiff stepped on a coal hole cover on the sidewalk in front of premises owned by the additional defendant. The cover tilted with her weight, causing her leg to go into the hole with resulting injury. She brought suit against the City of Pittsburgh, which, in turn, brought in the property owner as an additional defendant. The court granted a compulsory non-suit as to the city; the plaintiff has a verdict against the property owner, who appeals from the refusal of her motion for judgment n.o.v.
The plaintiff described the accident as follows: "I was just walking up the avenue when I came to this place, I did not see it, but I stepped — you know, when you are walking, — my foot went on it and the lid went and my leg went down in it. The lid flew off and hit me in the back, but my knee went clear down."
She called a witness who testified that he had frequently passed over the point where the accident happened and that for a period of four or five years the lid had been in such condition that stepping on it would cause it to tilt or wobble. Another witness testified that a month or so before the accident she had noticed that the lid "rocked back and forth;" another witness testified that two or three days before the accident she had seen some boys remove the lid. An architect testified that lids of the type involved ordinarily have a fastening device which is operated from the inside and which keeps the lid secure and prevents its removal from the *595 outside; and this lid was provided with attachments for such a device. The inference is the device was not in use.
In our opinion, the questions of negligence and contributory negligence were properly left to the jury. As Judge HEAD, speaking for this court in Strohm v. Haverstick,
Vendig v. Union League of Philadelphia,
Although plaintiff admitted she did not look at the cover before she stepped on it, this, in our opinion, would not convict her of contributory negligence as a matter of law. There is nothing to indicate that the cover appeared to be dangerous and one of plaintiff's witnesses testified that without stepping on it there was nothing in its appearance to indicate it was "wobbly." See Dickson v. Hollister, supra.
Judgment is affirmed.