Danisch v. Amer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 188, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from order of C. P., No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1908, No. 1931, refusing to talce off nonsuit in case of Henry Danisch by his next friend, Henry Rajsik, v. William Amer and Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Davis, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
The negligence alleged against the defendant is that the plaintiff was put to work in an unsafe and dangerous place without giving him proper instructions, and in maintaining *107deficient, unsafe and improper machinery lacking ample safety devices. The evidence fails to disclose any negligence making the defendant liable in damages because of his being put to work in a dangerous and unsafe place without giving him proper instructions. This branch of the case needs no further consideration.
The evidence did show that the hood which covered the fleshing roller was broken…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sykes v. PackerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Kaufhold v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Diehl v. Lehigh Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Green & Coates Street Passenger Railway Co. v. BresmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Baldwin v. UrnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Leonard v. Nazareth Cement Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Reber v. Alsace TownshipSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912