The Tresco
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
1DissentDallas, Circuit Judge
The casualty in question resulted from the imperfect splicing of the cable employed in doing the work in which the plaintiff was engaged. The cable in all other respects was fit for the work to which it was put, and it matters not what the general character of the inspection given it may have been, for nothing short of the removal of the “tarred service” in which the splicing was enveloped would have disclosed its defectiveness, or have availed to avert the accident. This, in the opinion of the majority of the court, “reasonable prudence” required to be done, but I am unable to concur in that…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Wabash Railway Co. v. McDanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Tuttle v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee RailwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Weeks v. Wilson Transit Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.