70 Pa. Super. 377 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1918
Opinion by
The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for an injury to his mule, resulting from its falling upon the street, which fall plaintiff alleges to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in maintaining upon the street a pavement with a smooth, hard, even surface, which when wet became slippery. The evidence produced at the trial was to the effect that the plaintiff was driving his team along Centre street, Pottsville, there was an ice wagon standing at the place where he intended to stop and the water dripping from the ice had caused the pavement to become wet. YYhen the ice wagon was driven away the plaintiff drove toward the curb and one of the mules slipped upon the wet pavement, fell and was so injured as to render it practically useless. The pavement of this cartway was composed of wooden blocks, laid close together, presenting a hard, smooth, and even surface, which when wet became slippery and, as a consequence, horses sometimes fell upon it. The court below entered a compulsory nonsuit, which it subsequently refused to take off, which action the appellant now assigns for error.
We have in this case no suggestion that the pavement was out of repair. The street had been paved with wooden blocks in accordance with the plan adopted by the municipal authorities, and there is no intimation that the work had not been done in strict accordance with the plan. The wooden blocks presented a hard, smooth, even surface which had been maintained in the condition by the municipal authorities intended. It may be granted that the evidence establishes that such a pavement would become slippery when wet. Was the negligence of the city, in maintaining such a pavement, a question to be
Pavement composed of wooden blocks laid close together, presenting a hard, smooth, and even surface, while not the only method, is, nevertheless, one adopted in many cities all over this and other lands, and it cannot be pretended that a pavement of asphalt is not equally slippery when wet. There is no assertion that the pavement of Centre street was not a good one of its kind. The kind may not have been the best, but it was an ordinary approved method of construction. This brings the case within the principles announced in Canavan v. Oil City, supra; Boro, of Easton v. Neff, 102 Pa. 474, and Stanka v. Shamokin Boro., 66 Pa. Superior Ct. 553, and the court below was clearly right in refusing to take off the non-suit.
The judgment is affirmed.