Legal Opinion

Senlock v. P. & R. C. & I. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 9, 1931No. Appeal 251PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Baedkige, J.,

The sole question in this compensation case is whether the death of claimant’s husband from pneumonia was the result of accidental injury, as contemplated by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The compensation authorities found that it was. With this conclusion we concur.

When the decedent went to work in defendant’s coal mine on the night of April 17, 1930, he was apparently in good health. He, with another employe, was engaged, when he began his work, in standing timber in a gangway where he had been working for some days. In places this gangway was wet and in other parts…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McCauley v. Imperial Woolen Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  2. Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. Mauchline v. State Insurance FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Jones v. Phila. & Reading C. & I. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  5. Boyle v. P. & R. C. & I. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Lacey v. Washburn & Williams Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Parks v. Miller Printing MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Micale v. Light & State Workmen's Insurance FundSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Roth v. Locust Mountain State HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Heisler v. Lincoln Realty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API