Opinion

McCullough v. Philadelphia

  • 32 Pa. Super. 109
  • 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 292
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Nov 19, 1906
Status
Published
Author
Porter
On the bench
Beaver, Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.3%

The opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The plaintiff, Barbara McCullough, was playing in and about a swing in the yard of a public schoolhouse at the southwest corner of Sixteenth and Moore streets, in the city of Philadelphia, and while pushing the swing slipped or tripped on a depression in the bricks of the pavement of the school yard, fell to her knees, and while in that position was struck by the returning swing and her leg was broken. It may be assumed that the verdict of the jury establishes that the fall of the plaintiff was occasioned by a defect in the pavement of the school yard and that those whose duty it was to repair said defect had been guilty of negligence.

The duty to maintain and repair the public school buildings and the premises thereto appurtenant, in the city of Philadelphia, rests upon the board of public education of the first school district of Pennsylvania, and the sectional boards, as established by law; and there is no duty upon or power in the city to control the public schools as one of its affairs: Board of Public Education v. Ransley, 209 Pa. 51 . The officers of the school district are not officers of the city of Philadelphia, a municipal corporation, nor are they invested with municipal powers nor charged with the performance of municipal functions: Chalfant v. Edwards, 173 Pa. 246 . There was no evidence that the authorities of the school district had made any arrangement with the city authorities, under the provisions of the Act of June 26, 1895, P. L. 331, under which the former abandoned and turned over to the municipal authorities the control, management and care of the public school grounds, “ for park and recreation purposes by the public.” The only evidence in the case referring to the subject was to the effect that the control and management of the property remained in the authorities of the school *111 district, in whom it is under the law presumed to be. This case is ruled by Rosenblit v. Philadelphia, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 587 ; and the city of Philadelphia, as a municipal corporation, cannot be held liable for the injuries of which the plaintiff complains.

The judgment is reversed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.