
    Price, Appellant, v. Betz.
    
      Negligence—Scaffolding on sidewalk.
    
    Where a person erects a temporary platform on the sidewalk in front of his property for the purpose of taking down a wall condemned by the building inspectors, he is bound to take all reasonable precautions against injuries to persons lawfully using the footwalk, but that is the measure of his duty. He is not bound to anticipate that a boy fourteen years old would jump on a moving freight train for the purpose of stealing a ride, and while standing on the step of a car be struck by a post of the platform.
    Argued March 26, 1901.
    Appeal, No. 336, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1898, No. 145, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of George S. Price, a minor, by' his father and next friend, George S. Price, and said George S. Price in his own right, v. John F. Betz.
    Before Mitchell, Fell, Bbown, Mestbezat and Potteb, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass for personal injuries.
    At the trial it appeared that in May, 1897, defendant erected a temporary platform on the sidewalk of Willow street in front of his property for the purpose of taking down a wall condemned by the building inspectors. One of the posts of this platform was near the curb. On Willow street there was a railroad track on which freight trains were operated. On May 21,1897, the plaintiff, a boy about fourteen years old jumped on a moving freight train for the purpose of stealing a ride, and while standing with one foot on the step of the car and one on the bumper, struck the post near the curb, and was injured.
    The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.
    
      Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
    
      Lewis Hopper with him Frederick J. Shoyer, for appellants.
    
      Samuel Q-ustine Thompson, for appellee, was not heard.
    May 27, 1901:
   Opinion by

Mb,. Justice Mitchell,

The defendant had erected a temporary platform on the sidewalk in front of his property for the purpose of taking down a wall condemned by the building inspectors. In so doing he was bound to take all reasonable precautions against injuries to persons lawfully using the footwalk, but that was the measure of his duty. He was not bound to anticipate that the plaintiff would attempt a dangerous trespass by jumping on a moving train just at the edge of his platform. The evidence failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant, and the non-suit was therefore properly ordered.

Judgment affirmed.  