17 A.2d 338 | Pa. | 1940
On the south sidewalk of Federal Street, in the City of Philadelphia, beginning a foot or two east of Fifth Street and extending east about thirteen feet and from the houseline north about four feet, there was a general elevation in the pavement of from 3/4 of an inch to 1 1/8 inches, bordered by a flat strip or rim of iron. This area originally had been the site of a grating over a light well, but was later paved with cement.
On November 25, 1938, the sidewalk was covered with snow and ice as the result of a heavy storm and freezing weather. Plaintiff, walking across the pavement, fell and sustained injuries, and brought the present suit against the property owners and the City of Philadelphia to recover damages. The learned trial judge gave binding instructions for defendants. *487
Plaintiff described the accident as follows: "My foot went down an incline, and I fell. . . . My right foot went down the incline. . . ." Asked, "Are you sure you didn't fall or stumble over anything?" she answered, "No." She testified: "My foot . . . just went off like a slant." From this it is obvious that plaintiff slipped on the ice and snow. She does not contend that defendants were negligent in not having cleaned the pavement, as the snow had ceased falling only about an hour before the accident. What she complains of is the slight elevation of part of the sidewalk, but she did not stumble or trip over it and whether it was actually the cause of her fall is far from clear. Negligence is not a ground of recovery unless a causative factor of the accident: Reddington v. Cityof Philadelphia,
There is another reason why plaintiff cannot recover. The alleged defect was so trifling that it did not impose liability upon either the property owners or the city. Their duty was to maintain the pavement in a condition of reasonable safety, not to insure pedestrians traversing it against any and all accidents. An elevation, depression or irregularity in a sidewalk may be so trivial that the court, as a matter of law, is bound to hold that there was no negligence in permitting it to exist. Illustrations of the application of this principle are to be found in such cases as: Mason v. Philadelphia,
Judgment affirmed.