Shaw v. Reed
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Clearfield county. William C. Reed against Richard Shaw. This was an action on the case, to recover damages for injury done to the plaintiff’s raft on the Susquehanna, by which it was wholly lost, ft appeared that the plaintiff’s raft was lashed to the shore in the Muncy dam, and the defendant’s raft, which was conducted by a skilful pilot, the owner not being with it, was coming down the river, and made an effort to land above the plaintiff’s…
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Clearfield county. William C. Reed against Richard Shaw. This was an action on the case, to recover damages for injury done to the plaintiff’s raft on the Susquehanna, by which it was wholly lost, ft appeared that the plaintiff’s raft was lashed to the shore in the Muncy dam, and the defendant’s raft, which was conducted by a skilful pilot, the owner not being with it, was coming down the river, and made an effort to land above the plaintiff’s raft but failed, in consequence of which it ran against it, broke it loose from its fastenings, and it was driven off,…
1Opinion of the Court
*73The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons given by Judge Woodward. Throughout the whole cause Wurtz is treated as the servant of Shaw, and of course Shaw is answerable for any damages caused by his negligence. The raft was constructed by Shaw in the usual mode for market, and committed to the custody of Wurtz, but on what terms he took charge of it does not appear. Wurtz, it seems, employed the hands, but who paid them wre are not informed. The case is governed by the principles applicable to the law of master and servant, and it follows that…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Patterson v. KatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1907
- Hays v. MillarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Baxter v. WunderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Guiterman v. Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Mail Steamship Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1879