Corcoran v. Wanamaker

Negligence — Use of acids in laundry — Evidence—Nonsuit. In an action against the proprietors of a laundry by an employee to recover damages for loss of eyesight alleged to have been caused by fumes created by the use of acids, a nonsuit is properly entered where there is no evidence that the defendants had any knowledge that the use of the acids complained of would produce the disease from which the plaintiff suffered, and there is no proof that it was not customary to use acids in laundries in the same manner and proportions as they were used in the laundry business conducted by the defendants.

Appeal, No. 12, Jan. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1896, No. 925, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff, a girl eighteen years old, was employed in the defendants’ laundry as a plain ironer. There was evidence that the defendants used in' their laundry oxalic and sulphuric acids and chloride of lime. Plaintiff claimed that about three months after her first employment, she was set at work over a hot mangle; that she temporarily returned to plain ironing; that she was subsequently put to work again on the mangle, and that while she was at work at the mangle, her eyes became affected by fumes from the acids and chloride of lime, and that in consequence she subsequently lost her sight. There was no evidence that the defendants knew that the acids complained of would produce the disease from which the plaintiff suffered, or that it was not customary to use acids in laundries in the same manner and proportions as they were used in defendants’ laundry. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.