Smith v. Oil City Tube Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 72, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Jan. T., 1896, No. 54, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Criswell, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff was injured on the evening of April 5, 1896, while working in defendant’s tube works.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 72, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Jan. T., 1896, No. 54, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Criswell, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff was injured on the evening of April 5, 1896, while working in defendant’s tube works. He testified that he had been instructed by the furnace and roll boss to handle some pipe in a dangerous 'place where he had not worked before; that he had not previously done this kind of work; that he had not been properly instructed as to its danger, or as to his work, and that in…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Cheep Justice Sterrett,
• After a careful review of all the testimony we are satisfied that material questions of fact for the determination of the jury are presented therein, and hence it was the duty of the court to submit the case to them with proper instructions. There is not a single complaint as to the charge, or any of the learned judge’s instructions, except his refusals to give the binding instructions requested in defendant’s first and fifth points for charge; and these constitute the only assignments of error in this case. In the first of these he was asked to say, “…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Killmeyer v. Forged Steel Wheel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Brislin v. Kingston Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Henessey v. Wabash Mills Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912