Legal Opinion

Huber v. Jackson & Sharp Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided February 15, 1895Published

This was an action on the case for damages caused by an accident to the plaintiff while in the employment of the defendant, by which he lost the fingers of his right hand, as he alleged, by reason of the negligence of the defendant. The material facts are stated in the charge of the Court.

Read the full summary

This was an action on the case for damages caused by an accident to the plaintiff while in the employment of the defendant, by which he lost the fingers of his right hand, as he alleged, by reason of the negligence of the defendant. The material facts are stated in the charge of the Court. At the trial, Bird, for the plaintiff, asked John Pauley, a witness for the plaintiff: From having seen men work, as you say, every day on the jointer side of that machine, state to the jury what effect the floor shaking had upon that machine and the men working upon it? An objection was overruled.

1DissentLore, C. J.

I agree with the majority of the court that the issue is one arising from the condition of the building at that time. There is no doubt about that.

It does not occur to me, however, that this proof changes the issue, but is only the proof of that condition.

I understand that proof is offered for the purpose of showing that the building is in the same condition now that it was then, and an examination now coupled with examinations then will show that the building was safe or unsafe, whatever it may be.

If that building was safe or unsafe on that day and it is in the precise condition to-day that…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. BaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Dolner v. The MonticelloU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1870
  4. Baltimore & Potomac Railroad v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  5. Cook v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API