Hoffner v. Prettyman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 39, Oct. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 1250, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 39, Oct. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 1250, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass. Before Brbgy, J. It appeared from the evidence that the defendants erected a scaffold to be used by plaintiff and others while working on a building being erected by defendants, that it was alleged that it was improperly braced and supported, and that defective and insufficient materials were used; that plaintiff was in the employ of Bohem & Bros., who were under an independent contract with defendants to do the cornice and tinwork of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The defendants were engaged in a building operation. The plaintiff was in the employ of a firm who were doing the metal cornice work thereon, under a contract which required the defendants to furnish the necessary scaffolding. While the plaintiff was at his work, a part of this scaffolding fell with him, whereby he was injured. He sued to recover damages. The cause was submitted to the jury on the question of the negligent construction of the scaffold. The verdict was for the plaintiff. The defendants assign for error the refusal of the court below to give binding'…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kehler v. Schwenk, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northumberland County1891
- Fick v. JacksonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Migias v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1958