Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. v. Keenan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1883, No. 222. Case, by James Keenan against the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Kailroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while in the employment of the defendant, though the alleged negligence of the latter in not furnishing suitable implements.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1883, No. 222. Case, by James Keenan against the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Kailroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while in the employment of the defendant, though the alleged negligence of the latter in not furnishing suitable implements. The facts were as follows: Keenan was employed by the defendant company in the work of shifting and making up trains. Previous to the accident, he had done this work only live or six times. In order to shift the trains, it…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was filed
Fee Curiam.
It is true a master does not warrant his servant’s safety. The latter will be deemed to have assumed all risks naturally and reasonably incident to his employment. The master, however, is under an implied contract to exercise reasonable care to adopt and maintain suitable instruments and means to carry ou the business iu which his servants are employed : Green & Coates St. Pass. Railway Co. v. Bresmer, 1 Out. 103.
Whether the “ pushing pole ” without any handle was a reasonable, safe and suitable instrument with which to perform the services imposed…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dooner v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Augerstein v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Morrison v. South Penn Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Powell v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907