Matlack v. Plumb
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 100, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from judgment, of C. P. Philadelphia Co., No. 5, March T., 1911, No. 1861, refusing to take off non-suit in case of William A. Matlack y. Payette R. Plumb, incorporated. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Ralston,' J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. At the trial a judgment of nonsuit was entered which the court subsequently refused to take off.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 100, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from judgment, of C. P. Philadelphia Co., No. 5, March T., 1911, No. 1861, refusing to take off non-suit in case of William A. Matlack y. Payette R. Plumb, incorporated. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Ralston,' J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. At the trial a judgment of nonsuit was entered which the court subsequently refused to take off. Error assigned, among others, was the refusal to take off the nonsuit. cited: McCoy v. Wolf Co., 235 Pa. 571; Schaefer v. Consolidated Ice Co., 238 Pa. 367; Booth y. Stokes, 241 Pa.…
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Moschziskee:. I cannot agree that “in chief the plaintiff established the fact that the emery wheel was guarded”; the most that the testimony shows is that “it had a covering over it to carry the dust away,” made of “tin”; and there was nothing to suggest that this was intended for or would serve as a protection to an operator in case the wheel should break, which was the contingency to be guarded against. Next, I do not agree that the plaintiff was obliged to produce opinion testimony to show this tin device was not a “proper guard.” In entering the nonsuit…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wagner v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Ake v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913