Pittston Coal Co. v. McNulty
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE LUZERNE COUNTY. No. 208 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct. ,• court below, No. 168 February Term 1884, C. P. On February 1,1884, an action in case for negligence was begun by John McNulty, by his next friend and father, Martin McNulty, against The Pittstom Coal Co., to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE LUZERNE COUNTY. No. 208 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct. ,• court below, No. 168 February Term 1884, C. P. On February 1,1884, an action in case for negligence was begun by John McNulty, by his next friend and father, Martin McNulty, against The Pittstom Coal Co., to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. At the trial on December 12, 1887, it was made to appear that on September 27, 1888, John McNulty, a lad of twelve years who for some time had been in the employ of the Pitts-tori Coal Co., in the work of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
Mr. Justice Clark :
The plaintiff in this case, on the 27th of September, 1883, was, and for some time prior to that had been, an employee of the Pittston Coal Company. He was at that time a lad of twelve or thirteen years of age, and was employed to oil the machinery in the breaker. On the day mentioned, however, he was temporarily sent into the mines, to serve as a driver, in which capacity it was his duty to hitch a mule to loaded cars at the heading, and drive the mule on a side track a mile or more to the main or loaded track at the foot of the slope, where the mule was detached…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mensch. v. Pa. R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Bradbury v. Kingston Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893