Legal Opinion

Barkanich v. Jeddo-Highland Coal Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 9, 1932No. Appeal 45PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

The facts of this case are not in dispute. Claimant was employed as a door boy in defendant’s coal mine. His duties required him to open six doors located on various gangways. He was permitted to ride on the train of mine cars from one door to another, but was instructed to ride on the motor at the rear of the train and not to ride between the cars or on the front end of the train. At the time of the accident he was riding on the front end of a train of empty mine cars in disobedience of tbe positive instructions of his employer. Tbe car on which be was riding became…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dickey v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  2. Gurski v. Susquehanna Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. Blouss v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  4. Waite v. Pittsburgh Limestone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  5. Walker v. Quemahoning Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Jenkins v. Glen Alden Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Franks v. Point Marion Bridge Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  3. Robertson v. Rieder & SonsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. Warren Car Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Moore v. Hunt Mining Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API