Creachen v. Bromley Bros.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 10, Jan. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1901, No. 199, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Francis Creachen by his next friend and mother, Elizabeth Creachen, v. Bromley Brothers Carpet Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Ralston, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
Francis Creachen, the plaintiff, a minor between fifteen and sixteen years of age, was employed by the defendant company to work in its carpet manufactory in the city of Philadelphia. His duties were to operate a machine called a picker, used for separating wool. As described by one of the witnesses, the machine “ is composed of a rotative cylinder with a number of projections—sharp steel projections—-that come in contact with wool that is fed between two rollers, and that take the stock of wool from the apron. And while the rollers are holding it these flying…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ely v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis RailwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Strader v. MonroeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Tagg v. McGeorgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Doyle v. Pittsburg Waste Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Welsh v. ButzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
3Cited by5 opinions
- Creachen v. Bromley Bros. Carpet Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Wilder ex rel. Wilder v. Great Western Cereal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Kobierowski v. Commonwealth Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Blumenthal v. GreenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Kates v. MulhernSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963