Heyse v. Philadelphia Electric Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 209, Jan. T., 1914,. by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, PhiladeJphia Co., Sept. T., 1913, No. 282, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Theodore Heyse v. The Philadelphia Electric Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 209, Jan. T., 1914,. by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, PhiladeJphia Co., Sept. T., 1913, No. 282, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Theodore Heyse v. The Philadelphia Electric Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Staples, P. J., specially presiding. . From the record it appeared that plaintiff, a carpenter, was in the employ of Raff, a builder who, under directions of defendant’s construction department was doing carpentry and concrete work at defendant’s electric power house. Defendant’s foreman, McDonald, and assistant foreman, Stout,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
The main contention of appellant is that under the evidence as developed at the trial a verdict should have been directed for defendant, because the injury sustained by the plaintiff was the direct result of a mistaken assurance of safety given him by an employee of the defendant, who was acting beyond the scope of his em*102ployment. This position, if sustained, would make the right to recover damages in the present case depend upon a very narrow point. But even if the case should be so considered, two questions necessarily arise: First, whether the injury was the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Reboni v. Case Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Robb v. Gylock Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956