Massman v. Philadelphia

19 Citing cases

  1. Alston v. Pa. Dep't of Transp.

    No. 2478 C.D. 2010 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 14, 2011)

    Van Ormer v. City of Pittsburgh, 347 Pa. 115, 116, 31 A.2d 503, 504 (1943) (quoting German v. City of McKeesport, 8 A.2d 437, 441 (Pa. Super. 1937)). The City first argues that because our Supreme Court, in Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 430 Pa. 99, 241 A.2d 921 (1968), concluded that a defect of 1/2 inch was not trivial, the defect here is, likewise, not trivial because 5/8th inch is greater than 1/2 inch. However, there is "[n]o definite or mathematical rule," but instead "[w]hat constitutes a defect sufficient to render the property owner liable must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the particular case."

  2. Hall v. Hess Corp.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-4533 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    . . . But unless a defect is obviously trivial, its gravity is an issue of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances of the particular case. See Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 430 Pa. 99, 241 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. 1968).Waddington v. United States, 2008 WL 2522430, at *7 (E.D. Pa. June 24, 2008) (Shapiro, J.) (citations omitted).

  3. Keifer v. Reinhart Foodservice, LLC

    Civil Action No. 09-1558 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 11, 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Denying punitive damages against defendant driver for lack of evidence showing "subjective appreciation of the risk of harm caused by his actions"

    " (ECF No. 326 at 11.) Matheney and Reinhart cite Massman v. Philadelphia, 241 A.2d 921, 925 (Pa. 1968) (per curiam) in support of this argument. (ECF No. 326 at 11.)

  4. Garcia v. Treetops, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00399 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2016)

    Thus, "an elevation, a depression or an irregularity on a street or highway may be so trivial that courts, as a matter of law, are bound to hold that there was no negligence in permitting such depression or irregularity to exist," Bosack v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 189 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. 1963), because it is physically and economically impractical to require "[o]wners of large areas of land . . . to police each and every square foot for minor depressions and protrusions." Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 241 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. 1968). However, Defendants fail to explain how an irregularity on a large tract of land is akin to the indoor carpeting ripple at issue here.

  5. Argentieri v. First Vehicle Services, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2086 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Id. Unless a defect is obviously trivial, however, "its gravity should be a fact determined in light of the circumstances of the particular case." Ozer v. Metromedia Rest. Group, Steak Ale of Pa., Inc., No. CIV.A.08-940, 2005 WL 525400, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2005) (citing Massman v. Philadelphia, 241 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. 1968) (finding that circumstances required question of triviality of defect should be decided by jury)). Defendant, in this case, cites to examples of defects which have been found to be so obviously trivial as to preclude imposing liability, including a cobblestone sunk one and a half to two inches, Bosack v. Pittsburgh Railway Co., 189 A.2d 877, 879-81 (Pa. 1963); a hole in the street that was three feet long, one inch wide and one-half inch deep, Bullick v. Scranton, 302 A.2d 849, 849 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1973); a two or three inch difference in sidewalk level between joints or divisions, Cline v. Statler, 24 Pa. D. C.4th 289, 290-92 (1997), aff'd, 726 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998); a rise where the driveway met the sidewalk on defendants' property of between .75 inches and 1.5 inches, Lucacos v. Tzinis, et. al., 76 Pa. D. C.4th 404, 406-08 (2005); a one and a half inch difference between the levels of two abutting curbstones, McGlinn v. Philadelphia, 186 A. 747, 747 (Pa. 1936); an unev

  6. Waddington v. U.S.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-4903 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 24, 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that United States Postal Service had sufficient notice of attorneys' representation, because of attorney's signature on Form 95 and USPS treatment of attorney as representative

    But unless a defect is obviously trivial, its gravity is an issue of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances of the particular case.See Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 241 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. 1968). Waddington testified that the water main cover was on a "downward slope" or "indentation" one-and-a-half to two inches below the sidewalk.

  7. Lowe v. Pirozzi

    Civil Action No. 05-5048 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2006)   Cited 5 times

    However, unless a defect is obviously trivial, its gravity should be a fact determined in light of the circumstances of the particular case. See Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 241 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. 1968) (finding that circumstances required question of triviality of defect should be decided by jury); Breskin v. 535 Fifth Avenue, 113 A.2d 316, 318 (Pa. 1955) (noting that "except where the defect is obviously trivial" question as to whether defect was sufficient to render liability should be decided by jury). As Defendants indicate, examples of defects which have been found to be so obviously trivial as to preclude imposing liability include: (1) a one and one-half inch difference between the levels of two abutting curbstones, McGlinn v. City of Philadelphia, 186 A. 747 (Pa. 1936); (2) a one and one-half inch space between the adjoining ends of flagstones at a street crossing, Newell v. City of Pittsburgh, 123 A. 768 (Pa. 1924); (3) an uneven, rough, unpaved step between a curb and sidewalk, that was two to four inches below the sidewalk level, Foster v. West View Borough, 195 A. 82 (Pa. 1937); (4) a manhole cover that projected two inches above the surface of the street, Harrison v.

  8. OZER v. METROMEDIA RESTAURANT GROUP

    Civil Action No. 04-940 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Considering "the proximity of the raised asphalt [the defect] to the curb . . . because a stumble over the raised asphalt . . . could be exacerbated by an individual's inability to recover . . . before confronting the curb."

    However, unless a defect is obviously trivial, its gravity should be a fact determined in light of the circumstances of the particular case. See Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 241 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. 1968) (finding that circumstances required question of triviality of defect should be decided by jury); Breskin v. 535 Fifth Avenue, 113 A.2d 316, 318 (Pa. 1955) (noting that "except where the defect is obviously trivial" question as to whether defect was sufficient to render liability should be decided by jury). In the instant case, as the Defendants point out, examples of defects which have been found to be so obviously trivial as to preclude imposing liability include: (1) a one and one-half inch difference between the levels of two abutting curbstones,McGlinn v. City of Philadelphia, 186 A. 747 (Pa. 1936); (2) a one and one-inch space between the adjoining ends of flagstones at a street crossing, Newell v. City of Pittsburgh, 123 A. 768 (Pa. 1924); (3) an uneven, rough, unpaved step between a curb and sidewalk, that was two to four inches below the sidewalk level,Foster v. Borough of West View, 195 A .82 (Pa. 1937); (4) a manhole cover that projected two inches above the surface of th

  9. Mascharka v. Leola Family Restaurant, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 03-4051 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2004)   Cited 3 times

    However, unless a defect is obviously trivial, its gravity should be a fact determined in light of the circumstances of the particular case.See Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 241 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. 1968) (finding that circumstances required question of triviality of defect to be decided by jury); Breskin v. 535 Fifth Avenue, 113 A.2d 316, 317 (Pa. 1955) (noting that "except where the defect is obviously trivial" question as to whether defect was sufficient to render liability should be decided by jury). In the context of stairway defects, commentators have observed that a slight difference in the height of stair risers may not be a basis for liability if there is no evidence that the slightly higher step caused the fall.

  10. Markstone v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

    356 F. Supp. 767 (E.D. Pa. 1973)

    First, is a one eighth inch drop in the level of a driveway at a seam or crack sufficient evidence of a defect to permit the case to go to a jury?         The two latest Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in this area are Massman v. Philadelphia, 430 Pa. 99, 241 A.2d 921 (1968), and Teagle v. Philadelphia, 430 Pa. 395, 243 A.2d 342 (1968). Massman, supra, affirmed the opinion of President Judge Jamieson, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, as reported in 44 Pa.Dist. & Co.2d 636 (1967).