Sweigert v. Klingensmith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 88, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., • March Term, 1908, No. 190, on verdict for plaintiff in ease of Harry E. Sweigert v. Samuel Klingensmith et al, trading as J. Klingensmitli Mills. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Patton, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court and by the charge of the court below which was in part as follows : That is the question for this jury to pass upon.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 88, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., • March Term, 1908, No. 190, on verdict for plaintiff in ease of Harry E. Sweigert v. Samuel Klingensmith et al, trading as J. Klingensmitli Mills. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Patton, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court and by the charge of the court below which was in part as follows : That is the question for this jury to pass upon. Did Samuel Klingensmith furnish to Harry Sweigert such appliances and machinery to work with as were in ordinary use in this…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Thompson,
The failure of appellants to supply proper appliances with which to do the work and to give proper instructions to appellee, alleged to be inexperienced as to the use of machinery, were the grounds of negligence upon which appellee based his right to recover. The accident occurred in appellants’ gristmill and in its second story, in which were located a buckwheat shucker and a cornmeal bolt, run by a power shaft. The former placed above the latter, was run by a pulley attached to the end of its shaft by a belt extending from that pulley, to another, on the power…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ross v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Ricks v. FlynnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Doyle v. Pittsburg Waste Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903