Gary v. Oehrle Bros.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 59, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1913, No. 1,137, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Sarah E. Gary v. Oehrle Brothers. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Barratt, J. The circumstances of the accident are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,500. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kephart, J.,
This appeal presents three questions, two of which will be considered: (1) “Was the negligence of the company legally established? (2) Was the act of the plaintiff, which resulted in the injury, such an obviously unusual and dangerous one for the court to say, as a matter of law, that she was guilty of contributory negligence?”
The plaintiff, a young woman twenty-four years of age, employed by the defendant as a weaver, was assigned for duty on a modern loom. The machine was about fifteen feet long and from four and one-half to five feet wide. At each end were iron frames…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Jones v. American Caramel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Fegley v. Lycoming Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Solt v. Williamsport Radiator Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Snyder v. Longmead Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Ralston v. Baldwin Locomotive WorksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.