Veit v. Class & Nachod Brewing Co.

Veit v. The Class & Nachod Brewing Company

Veit v. Class & Nachod Brewing Co., 73 A. 982 (Pa. 1909)

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided: May 20, 1909
Docket: Nos. , No. 61
Judges: Cueiam, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter
Citations: 73 A. 982225 Pa. 541909 Pa. LEXIS 601
Disposition: Affirmed.

Cited by 0

Syllabus

Negligence — Master and servant — Incompetent fellow servant — Case for jury. In an action against a master for the death of a servant alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, the case is for the jury where the evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that the defendant placed in charge of a steam regulator an engineer who was known to be a man of intemperate habits, and intoxicated at the time of the accident, and where it appears that the accident resulted from excessive air pressure due to the fault of the engineer.

Summary

Appeal, No. 61, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1903, No. 2,615, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Katherine Veit v. The Class & Nachod Brewing Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband. Before Magill, J. For the facts see the opinion of the Supreme Court and 216 Pa. 29. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $7,500. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

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

Opinion of the Court — Cueiam

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

Pee Cueiam,

This case being close on its facts has had more than usual consideration, both in the court below, and in this court. When it was here before ( 216 Pa. 29 ) it was held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence in giving the night engineer charge of the steam regulator when he was known to be a man of intemperate habits, and there was some evidence that he was intoxicated on the night of the accident. It was therefore held to be a case for the jury. At the last trial, from which we have this present appeal, the testimony was substantially the same, and the judge was therefore right in submitting it to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Veit v. Class & Nachod Brewing Co., 64 A. 871 (Pa. 1906)	19

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list