TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Newton v. Vulcan Iron Works

Newton v. Vulcan Iron Works, 49 A. 339 (Pa. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 4, 1901
Docket
Nos. , No. 18
Judges
Brown, McCollum, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter
Citations
49 A. 339199 Pa. 6461901 Pa. LEXIS 672
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Negligence—Master and servant—Defective chain. In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the breaking of a chain, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained where the evidence for the plaintiff, although contradicted, tended to show that the chain was defective, that an inspection would have shown the defect, and that the link which broke was twenty-two feet above the place where plaintiff was working.
Summary
Appeal, No. 18, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1898, No. 653, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James P. Newton v. The Vulcan Iron Works. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Lynch, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was employed as a molder in defendants’ foundry at Tamaqua, and while at work on May 10, 1897, in lowering a mold into a pit, was injured by the breaking of the crane chain. The link which broke was twenty-two feet above the place where plaintiff was standing. The evidence for plaintiff, although contradicted, tended to show that the chain was in bad condition, had not been inspected for three years, and that if it had been inspected the defect would have been discovered. The court submitted the case to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $5,000. Defendant appealed. Error assigned among others was in submitting the case to the jury.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

The testimony introduced by the litigants required the sub *647 mission of the case to the jury. It follows that if there was no error in the charge or in the answers to the defendants’ third, sixth and seventh points, the verdict rendered and the judgment entered thereon should be sustained. An examination of the charge, and of the answers to the points referred to, have not convinced us of error in either. We therefore dismiss the specifications and affirm the judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 11907: 11914: 11919: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Curzi211 F. 580 (2d Cir. 1914)
  2. McGrath v. Atlantic Refining Co.107 A. 741 (Pa. 1919)
  3. O'Dowd v. Burnham19 Pa. Super. 464 (1902)
  4. Wilkinson v. Evans34 Pa. Super. 472 (1907)

Most recent

  1. McGrath v. Atlantic Refining Co.107 A. 741 (Pa. 1919)
  2. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Curzi211 F. 580 (2d Cir. 1914)
  3. Wilkinson v. Evans34 Pa. Super. 472 (1907)
  4. O'Dowd v. Burnham19 Pa. Super. 464 (1902)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list