Court Opinion

ID: 6248810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 21:08:06.366139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:21.944399
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The city of Philadelphia maintains a drawbridge on the line of a street, which crosses a stream navigable by small vessels. Near the entrance to the bridge there are gates over the cartway and over the footways, which are kept closed while the draw is open. These gates are so connected by cogwheels that they open and close at the same time, the force applied to move either being'transmitted to the other. The cogwheels are four or five feet from the ground and about twenty *163inches in diameter. The plaintiff, a boy under seven years of age, climbed on a girder of the bridge while the draw was open to see boats go through and placed his hand on the cogwheels, which were directly over the girder on which he was standing. The bridge tender had closed the gates and fastened them by means of a heavy iron latch or bar, before opening the draw. After he had closed the draw and was engaged in driving wedges which fastened it in place, a stranger unbarred the gate over the cartway and pulled it partly open, thus moving the cogs and injuring the plaintiff’s hand. On this state of facts a nonsuit was entered.
The city owed to the plaintiff the duty not wantonly to expose him to danger, but it ivas under no duty to protect him from a danger not to be anticipated, which could not have resulted from the ordinary and lawful use of the bridge, nor to maintain its structures in such a w&y as to prevent the possibility of an accident to a child. The exposed cogwheels were not in themselves dangerous, and no one in the proper use of the bridge could be injured by them. The case cannot be distinguished in principle from that of Oil City, etc., Bridge Co. v. Jackson, 114 Pa. 321, in which a child of seven years of age in crossing a bridge walked on a large gas pipe located at the side of the footway, and slipped and fell through an opening in the bridge.
Moreover, the proximate cause of the accident was the intervening and wrongful act of a stranger, for which the city was in no way responsible.
The judgment is affirmed.