Stewart v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 75, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1914, No. 442, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of S. C. Stewart and L. F. Stewart v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. Assumpsit for services rendered by surgeons. Before Bell, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for $436.50. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 75, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1914, No. 442, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of S. C. Stewart and L. F. Stewart v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. Assumpsit for services rendered by surgeons. Before Bell, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for $436.50. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant. A railroad company cannot be field liable for medical services rendered employees at request or knowledge of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
One of the plaintiffs, L. F. Stewart,- was the regularly employed surgeon of the defendant company, under a written agreement, at a fixed salary. The contract was terminated at the request of plaintiff. The firm of which he is a member now seeks to recover for the services rendered after the contract of employment terminated. Plaintiffs’ claim may be divided into three classes of items:
First: Part of the claim is for attendance upon a man who was injured whilst employed in the yard of the defendant company. Bullock, the assistant train-master, called the plaintiff by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Park v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Short v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hahnemann Hosp. v. Golo Slip. Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939