Reusch v. Groetzinger
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 92, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1896, No. 48, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Livingston, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff was employed in the beam house of defendants’ tannery in Lancaster city. On the day of the accident there was occasion to move one of the large stone slabs or tables on which leather was dressed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 92, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1896, No. 48, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Livingston, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff was employed in the beam house of defendants’ tannery in Lancaster city. On the day of the accident there was occasion to move one of the large stone slabs or tables on which leather was dressed. It was about twelve feet long, four and one half feet wide, and four inches thick. Plaintiff and other employees were summoned to help. It was raised upon its edge;…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Ctteiam,
It is perfectly apparent from the testimony that the accident resulted from the manner in which one of the men handled his crowbar in the effort to move the large stone table. It slipped, from some cause, and as a consequence the table fell over and injured the plaintiff. It was an accident such as is likely to happen in the ordinary conduct of any business, and is one of the risks which is assumed by the workmen in taking such employment. There is no testimony in the case to show that the accident resulted from the negligence of the defendants.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Blair v. B. O. R.R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Blair v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944