New v. Milligan
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 163, Oct. T., 1904, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1901, No. 223, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Henry Allen New v. Robert J. Milligan et al., trading as Columbian Tea Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries; Before WlLTBANK, J; The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for f300. Defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 163, Oct. T., 1904, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1901, No. 223, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Henry Allen New v. Robert J. Milligan et al., trading as Columbian Tea Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries; Before WlLTBANK, J; The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for f300. Defendants appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendants.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The defendants were the owners of a number of grocery stores, and placed one Cliff, as the manager of their store No. 12 at Chester, at which place there was no resident member of the firm. Cliff had exclusive control of the store and its contents, with authority to make all necessary orders in regard to the business and employees at that place.
There was a water-closet in a dimly lighted part of the cellar for the use of the employees, who were expected to use •it for the reason that by so doing their time would not be wasted or misspent in going away from the premises…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lewis v. SeifertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Finnerty v. BurnhamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Ricks v. FlynnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Lillie v. American Car & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.