Summary
In Allshouse v. Wilkinsburg Borough, 343 Pa. 323, 324, 22 A.2d 756, 757 (1941), this Court held that plaintiff "was bound to see what was plainly before him and similarity of color of the sections of the sidewalk and observation of traffic conditions in a highway which he was approaching could not excuse him."
Summary of this case from Markstone v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterOpinion
October 9, 1941.
November 24, 1941.
Negligence — Contributory — Pedestrians — Sidewalks — Defects — Similarity of color — Observation of traffic.
In an action for injuries, in which it appeared that in the afternoon of a bright, clear day, the plaintiff tripped over the edge of a section of concrete sidewalk which was raised above the section adjoining it, it was held that the evidence established as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent, despite plaintiff's testimony that he failed to see the irregularity because the two sections of the sidewalk were the same color and he was observing the traffic conditions in the highway which he was approaching.
Argued October 9, 1941.
Before SCHAFFER, C. J.; MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and PATTERSON, JJ.
Appeal, No. 175, March T., 1941, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1939, No. 2604, in case of Steele H. Allshouse v. Borough of Wilkinsburg. Order affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court below, by MCNAUGHER, J., as follows:
On a bright, clear day, about one-thirty in the afternoon, the plaintiff tripped over the edge of a section of concrete sidewalk on North Avenue, Wilkinsburg, which was raised approximately two and one-half inches above the section adjoining it. There was nothing to conceal the irregularity but the plaintiff testified that he did not see it because the two sections of sidewalk were of the same color and because he was hurrying toward Pitt Street which he intended to cross and was part of the time engaged in making observation of traffic conditions along that street. The defect was anywhere from one to three sidewalk sections from the curb-line of Pitt Street. Several witnesses called in behalf of the plaintiff testified that they knew of the condition of the sidewalk for a considerable period of time and that the defect was easily observable to them.
Under the evidence presented we think the trial judge was required to enter a compulsory non-suit. To state the circumstances of the case is to convict the plaintiff of contributory negligence. He was bound to see what was plainly before him and similarity of color of the sections of the sidewalk and observation of traffic conditions in a highway which he was approaching could not excuse him.
Plaintiff appealed.
L. Pat McGrath, with him A. R. McGrath, for appellant.
H. E. McCamey, of Dickie, Robinson McCamey, for appellee.
The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge MCNAUGHER.