Dyer v. Pittsburg Bridge Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 96, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1897, No. 149, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James Dyer v. The Pittsburg Bridge Company. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Me Clung, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was injured on March 23, 1897, while he was working for the defendant in the construction of a bridge.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 96, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1897, No. 149, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James Dyer v. The Pittsburg Bridge Company. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Me Clung, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was injured on March 23, 1897, while he was working for the defendant in the construction of a bridge. At the time of the accident he was engaged in helping to move a truss weighing about 9,000 pounds, which was being raised by a derrick. Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that the derrick had not been…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Cubiam,
No error was committed by the court in its refusal to direct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant. It was clearly within their province to determine from the evidence in the case whether the cause of the injury the plaintiff received was the negligence of the defendant, and if so whether the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed thereto. That it was the plain duty of the defendant company to provide a proper place and suitable appliances for the performance of the work its employees were required to do must bo conceded, and if the evidence disclosed an unwillingness of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- O'Dowd v. BurnhamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Converse Bridge Co. v. GrizzleTennessee Supreme Court · 1907
- Jamison v. Independent Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932