Lee v. Dobson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 90, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 2,324, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry Lee v. James Dobson. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before "WlLTBANK, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Yerdict for plaintiff for $12,000, upon which judgment was entered for $6,000, all above that amount having been remitted.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 90, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 2,324, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry Lee v. James Dobson. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before "WlLTBANK, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Yerdict for plaintiff for $12,000, upon which judgment was entered for $6,000, all above that amount having been remitted. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
The plaintiff was employed in the dye room of defendant’s *351carpet mill, where ho was in charge of two of the seven vats there used for dyeing and scouring yarn. What was required of him was to introduce into the vats from time to time a cage or frame on which the yarn was wound, and remove the same when it had sufficiently acquired the dye. This cage or frame was moved rapidly back and forth in the vat containing material by mechanical appliance, the power being derived from a countershaft which ran the entire length of the room at an elevation of eight or nine…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rummell v. Dilworth, Porter & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- Eddleman v. Pennsylvania Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Gross v. Westinghouse Airbrake Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918