Jemnienski v. Lobdell Car Wheel Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by reason of the negligence of the defendant. See facts in charge of court.
Read the full summary
Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by reason of the negligence of the defendant. See facts in charge of court. The defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the defects in the car and tracks of the defendant, claimed by the plaintiff to have been the cause of his injuries, were as apparent to the plaintiff as to the defendant, and that therefore he assumed the risk of dangers arising from his employment in and about the same and could not recover. Counsel for plaintiff in reply contended that there were three grounds of…
1Opinion of the Court
Boyce, J.:
The Court are of the opinion, under the facts as they have been proved, that rules do not apply in this case.
We decline to grant the nonsuit.
Counsel for the defendant at the conclusion of the testimony in the case, asked the Court to give binding instructions to the jury to find a verdict in favor of the defendant, basing said application upon the same grounds as urged in the motion for a nonsuit.
Boyce, J.,
charging the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury:—Jan Jemnienski, the plaintiff seeks, *387by this action, to recover from the Lobdell Car Wheel Company, the defendant, damages for personal…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Derrickson v. Commissioners of HarringtonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1927
- Binsau v. GarstinSupreme Court of Delaware · 1962