Hunter v. Chicago Railway Equipment Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 221, Oct. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Aug, T., 1913, No. 71, for defendant n. o. v. in case of Ezekial Benton Hunter and Mary E. Hunter v. Chicago Railway Equipment Company. Trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs’ son. Before Criswell, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict for plaintiffs for $2,000. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiffs appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 221, Oct. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Aug, T., 1913, No. 71, for defendant n. o. v. in case of Ezekial Benton Hunter and Mary E. Hunter v. Chicago Railway Equipment Company. Trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs’ son. Before Criswell, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict for plaintiffs for $2,000. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiffs appealed. Error assigned was the judgment of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
Harry Hunter, a son of the appellants, was an employee of the Chicago Railway Equipment Company, which operates a rolling mill in the City of Franklin, this State. At this plant old railroad rails are heated, slit and passed, red-hot, through various rolls until they become converted into long rods of desired shapes. Hunter’s employment was that of assisting in the operation of what is known as a web roll. He would pass the hot rods forward and backward through the rolls, the employee on the other side being Eugene Rogers, and the allegation of the plaintiffs below…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brunner v. Blaisdell Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
3Cited by1 opinion
- Westphale v. KijakaziDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2022