Rooney v. Carson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 176, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, Hugh Rooney, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1890, No. 273, entering nonsuit in favor of defendants, George Carson and George D. Irwin, trading as Carson & Irwin. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Biddle, J. At the trial it appeared that, on Nov. 29, 1889, plaintiff was injured in defendant’s mill.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 176, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, Hugh Rooney, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1890, No. 273, entering nonsuit in favor of defendants, George Carson and George D. Irwin, trading as Carson & Irwin. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Biddle, J. At the trial it appeared that, on Nov. 29, 1889, plaintiff was injured in defendant’s mill. At the time of the accident defendants were engaged in moving from one mill to another, and were making alterations in the latter. Plaintiff had, prior to this, worked in the old mill as a weaver and loom fixer, but had been laid…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
At the time of the accident, defendants were engaged in moving from one mill to another in which alterations were then being made. Sometime prior thereto, plaintiff worked in the old mill as a weaver, but had been “ laid off ” until the new mill “started up.” Afterwards he was employed to assist in moving and making alterations, and while so engaged was injured. As was said in Wannamaker v. Burke, 111 Pa. 423, it would be unreasonable to hold defendants “ to the same degree of strictness during alterations to the building as might be required after such alterations were completed.”…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wannamaker v. BurkeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- Auburn v. Tube Works Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900