Legal Opinion

Baldwin v. Urner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 9, 1903No. Appeal, No. 359PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal, No. 359, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1901, No. 9, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Harry M. Baldwin by his father and next friend, William H. Baldwin, v. W. C. Urner, trading as W. C. Urner & Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before ' Swartz, P. J. The circumstances of the accident are fully stated in the opinion of.the Supreme Court.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 359, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1901, No. 9, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Harry M. Baldwin by his father and next friend, William H. Baldwin, v. W. C. Urner, trading as W. C. Urner & Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before ' Swartz, P. J. The circumstances of the accident are fully stated in the opinion of.the Supreme Court. The locality of the accident is indicated by the following plan: The court entereda compulsory nonsuit whichit subsequently refused to take off. Error assigned was in…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Dean,

The plaintiff, a minor eighteen years of age, was employed by defendants in their machine knitting factory. He attended ten machines and had done so for about one month before February 12, 1901. Sometime before his last employment he had served in the same way at the same machines for two months but had been changed to other work in another part of the mill and after an interval of two or three months was changed back to the same ten machines. On the day mentioned plaintiff met with a serious accident and is probably permanently injured. The circumstances under…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kehler v. Schwenk, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northumberland County1891
  2. Rummell v. Dilworth, Porter & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  3. Kaufhold v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. American Car & Foundry Co. v. DukeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1914
  2. Danisch v. AmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API