Surles v. Kistler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 261, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., Dec., T., 1900, No. 6, on verdict for defendant in case of Helen Y. Surles v. Charles S. Kistler and Albert M. Hollenbach, trading as The Electric Laundry. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Schuyler, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 261, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., Dec., T., 1900, No. 6, on verdict for defendant in case of Helen Y. Surles v. Charles S. Kistler and Albert M. Hollenbach, trading as The Electric Laundry. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Schuyler, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
The defendants in this case were charged with negligence in failing to maintain the floor of a laundry in a safe conditipn.
It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff had been employed upon the premises for years, and was thoroughly familiar with the situation. She was an assistant washwoman, and had also the duty of occasionally scrubbing the floor. While the regular work of the laundry was going on, the floor was covered by wooden racks, for the purpose of keeping the feet of the workers out of the wet. They were obviously an ele*291ment of strength, to the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Solts v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Montgomery v. RoweSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913