Byers v. Carnegie Steel Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. This case is here for the second time. The plaintiff, an omployé of the defendant in tlie operation of an electrical locomotive, was injured by the sudden rising of a hydraulic elevator or “jack,” used in defendant’s plant in carrying cars of molten metal from the furnaces to the mixer.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. This case is here for the second time. The plaintiff, an omployé of the defendant in tlie operation of an electrical locomotive, was injured by the sudden rising of a hydraulic elevator or “jack,” used in defendant’s plant in carrying cars of molten metal from the furnaces to the mixer. The method of operation of the elevator, and ihe manner in which the accident occurred, are described in the opinion of this court upon the former review. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Byers, 149 Fed. 667, 82…
1Opinion of the CourtKnappen, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). If the evidence of the operators of the lever, to the effect that it had not been touched since the elevator was lowered five minutes before the accident and the lever then left at extreme reverse, is to be believed, any inference that the sudden starting was due to a premature movement of the lever on the part of the operator, and thus through the negligence of plaintiff’s fellow servant, was excluded. If the testimony of the expert Popovich is likewise to be believed, the sudden rising of the elevator could have been due only to a loose working of the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Schoepper v. Hancock Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Moynihan v. Hills Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Griffin v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. South Pork Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1905
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. KastCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
- Rochford v. Pennsylvania Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Central R. v. PelusoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Lucid v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1912
- Globe S. S. Co. v. MossCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.