Newton v. Vulcan Iron Works
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 18, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1898, No. 653, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James P. Newton v. The Vulcan Iron Works. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Lynch, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was employed as a molder in defendants’ foundry at Tamaqua, and while at work on May 10, 1897, in lowering a mold into a pit, was injured by the breaking of the crane chain.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 18, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1898, No. 653, on verdict for plaintiff in case of James P. Newton v. The Vulcan Iron Works. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Lynch, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was employed as a molder in defendants’ foundry at Tamaqua, and while at work on May 10, 1897, in lowering a mold into a pit, was injured by the breaking of the crane chain. The link which broke was twenty-two feet above the place where plaintiff was standing. The evidence for plaintiff, although contradicted, tended to show…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The testimony introduced by the litigants required the sub*647mission of the case to the jury. It follows that if there was no error in the charge or in the answers to the defendants’ third, sixth and seventh points, the verdict rendered and the judgment entered thereon should be sustained. An examination of the charge, and of the answers to the points referred to, have not convinced us of error in either. We therefore dismiss the specifications and affirm the judgment.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. CurziCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- McGrath v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- O'Dowd v. BurnhamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Wilkinson v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907