Goldstein v. Philadelphia School District
Goldstein, Et Al., Appellants, v. Philadelphia School District
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam, The minor plaintiff, 12 years of age, was injured while playing on the fire escape of one of the schools maintained by appellee. It appears the child tripped over a pile of books placed on the steps by other pupils during recess. Appellants contended that permitting the chil *72 dren to place books on tbe fire escape as a daily babit and to use it for play, constituted a nuisance which tbe school district negligently permitted to exist.
Tbe court below properly concluded that tbe condition described by appellants’ witnesses did not constitute a nuisance. At most, tbe agents and servants of tbe school district were negligent in permitting tbe pupils to do tbe things related, and it is well settled that a school district is not liable for tbe ordinary negligence of its employees:
Carlo v. Scranton School District, 319 Pa. 417 .
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.