From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cannon v. Blatt

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 26, 1941
20 A.2d 293 (Pa. 1941)

Opinion

May 12, 1941.

May 26, 1941.

Negligence — Contributory negligence — Landlord and tenant — Condition of common approach — Unlighted hallway.

In an action for injuries, in which it appeared that the wife plaintiff, a tenant in an apartment on the second floor of a building owned by defendant, fell down the steps while walking along a dark hallway, with which she was admittedly familiar, on the way to a bathroom for the common use of the tenants, it was held on appeal that the evidence established as a matter of law that the wife plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

Argued May 12, 1941.

Before SCHAFFER, C. J., MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.

Appeal, No. 201, Jan. T., 1941, from judgment of C. P. No. 6, Phila. Co., June T., 1940, No. 3133, in case of Cleo Cannon et al. v. Jack Blatt. Judgment affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before DAVIS, P. J.

Verdict directed for defendant and judgment entered thereon. Plaintiffs appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was direction of verdict for defendant.

David Kanner, for appellant.

Michael A. Foley and Henry I. Koplin, for appellee, were not heard.


This is an action of trespass to recover damages for injuries sustained by the wife plaintiff. From the judgment entered on a directed verdict in defendant's favor, plaintiffs appeal.

For more than a year prior to the accident, plaintiffs had lived, as tenants, in an apartment on the second floor front of a building owned by defendant. There was a bathroom in the center of the second floor for the use of the plaintiffs and other tenants on that floor. To reach the bathroom from plaintiffs' apartment, it was necessary to walk along a hallway and descend two steps. At about 6: 30 p. m. on the night in question, the wife plaintiff left her apartment to go to the bathroom. The electric light in the hall was out. She testified she was in a rush to get to the bathroom. As it was not very light outside, she lit a candle, which went out when she closed the door. Without relighting it, she proceeded by feeling along the wall with her hand. She said she did not realize she was so near the steps, and fell when she came to them and was injured. She admitted familiarity with the nature of the hall and said that it was so dark she was unable to see anything.

Under this showing, the trial judge properly directed a verdict for defendant on the ground that plaintiff was contributorily negligent: Conboy v. Osage Tribe No. 113, 288 Pa. 193, 135 A. 729; Hoffner v. Bergdoll, 309 Pa. 558, 164 A. 607; Fay v. 900 North 63rd St. Corp., 137 Pa. Super. 496, 9 A. 483.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Cannon v. Blatt

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 26, 1941
20 A.2d 293 (Pa. 1941)
Case details for

Cannon v. Blatt

Case Details

Full title:Cannon et al., Appellants v. Blatt

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: May 26, 1941

Citations

20 A.2d 293 (Pa. 1941)
20 A.2d 293

Citing Cases

Miller-DuPont v. Service

cal to that here existing, nevertheless the following decisions from our court, as well as those from other…

Beitch et ux. v. Mishkin

See Hoss v. Nestor B. L., supra, 164 Pa. Super. 77, 63 A.2d 435. Cannon v. Blatt, 342 Pa. 303, 20 A.2d 293;…