Garnett v. Phœnix Bridge Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
On Motion by Plaintiff for a New Trial.
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
This action was brought to recover for personal injury suffered by the plaintiff, in consequence, as alleged, of the negligent conduct of the defendant. When the accident occurred the plaintiff was a man of about 40 years of age, and of at least ordinary intelligence. Having previously been employed successively in two rolling mills, he, in May, 1896, entered the service of the defendant corporation, which was then engaged in erecting the board walk on the beach at Atlantic City. At ñrst, and for about two weeks, he helped to raise girders with a windlass, and then he…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Wabash Railway Co. v. McDanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Tuttle v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee RailwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Baulec v. . New York Harlem R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Stork v. Charles Stolper Cooperage Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Longpre v. Big Blackfoot Milling Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1909
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. MerrillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
- Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Pitney the Eureka No. 110. The St. CharlesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- Meyer v. LadewigWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.