Laughlin v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 347, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 5,- Philadelphia Co., March T., 1909, No. 569, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Joseph-Laughlin, by his next friend and father, John Laughlin, and the said John Laughlin in his own right v. City of Philadelphia. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Balston, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 347, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 5,- Philadelphia Co., March T., 1909, No. 569, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Joseph-Laughlin, by his next friend and father, John Laughlin, and the said John Laughlin in his own right v. City of Philadelphia. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Balston, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. The court granted a nonsuit which, on motion, it subsequently refused to take off. Error assigned was the action of the court in refusing to take off the nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Workmen employed by the city were engaged in planting bulbs in a bed that was surrounded by a low iron railing in a public square. A team of two horses harnessed to a wagon in which the bulbs were hauled was standing on a walk close to the railing. The plaintiff, a boy six years old, crawled into the narrow space between the railing and one of the horses and when close to the horse’s hind feet, and in a kneeling position, reaching through the fence, was kicked by the horse. The horse was not vicious and had not before been known to kick. Under these circumstances there was no want…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Barshay v. American Ice Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Rennie v. Schepps, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1929