Sewell v. Moore
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 129, July T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, No. 295, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Gordon, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was a factory hand, working in the' third floor of a mill of which the defendant was owner.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 129, July T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, No. 295, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Gordon, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was a factory hand, working in the' third floor of a mill of which the defendant was owner. On March 3, 1892, while the mill was in the possession of a tenant, a fire occurred, and the door leading to the fire escape having been locked by the direction of the tenant, plaintiff was unable to reach the fire escape, and was injured by jumping from a window. The evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
The learned judge directed a verdict for plaintiff leaving to the jury only the amount of damages, on the view that the statute required the construction of a fire escape in exact conformity to the method and details prescribed, or in case of any variance, the approval of the proper municipal authorities as a mandatory requirement, the absence of which would create a liability to any person injured in consequence of a fire in the building irrespective of any question of negligence or proximate cause. The statute will not bear so-severe a construction.
The act of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Community Fire Co. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Vandenberg v. SiterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Cohn v. MaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. KyserSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Neagley v. Cassone, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1927