St. Clair v. Edison Electric Light Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 244, Oct. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1902, No. 2,396, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William G. St. Clair v. Edison Electric Light Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Sulzberger, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $400. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff’s right to recover does not depend on an inference of negligence to be drawn by the jury from the happening of the accident alone. There was evidence not only that he was injured by the violent uplifting of a portion of the surface of a public street on which he was lawfully walking, but that this uplifting was caused by an explosion in an electric conduit owned and used by the defendant; that a fire had been burning in the conduit from seven o’clock in the morning or earlier until after eleven of the same forenoon; that the defendant had knowledge of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Transportation Company v. DownerSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Zahniser v. Pennsylvania Torpedo Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Alexander v. Nanticoke Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Devlin v. Beacon Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fitzpatrick v. PenfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Hepp v. Quickel Auto & Supply Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1933
- Cahill v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Cooke v. Davis, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1925