Law v. Central Dist. Printing & Telegraph Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania
At Law. -On rule for judgment non obstante veredicto on reserved points.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, District Judge.1
The jury by their verdict found the defendant company guilty of negligence, and absolved the plaintiff from blame; but the question is whether this was justified by the evidence, which is now to be determined on the points of law reserved. There is no controversy over the material facts. On the occasion of the accident the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a cable splicer, having been advanced to that position by reason of his previous good record as a lineman, at which work he had been engaged for three or four years. In that capacity he was required…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Titus v. Bradford etc. R., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, McKean County1890
- Alexander v. Nanticoke Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Flood v. . Western Union Telegraph CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Coolbroth v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gentzkow v. Portland Railway Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Dover v. Gloucester Electric Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1907