American Car & Foundry Co. v. Matzok

• Decision Date: 07 December 1915
• Docket Number: 1983.
• Citation: American Car & Foundry Co. v. Matzok, 228 F. 179 (3rd Cir. 1915)
• Parties: AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO. v. MATZOK.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

228 F. 179

AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO. v. MATZOK.

No. 1983.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

December 7, 1915

Fred Ikeler, of Bloomsburg, Pa., G. A. Orth, of St. Louis, Mo and Charles J. Hardy, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

Paul J Sherwood, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and R. W. Archbald, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant in error.

Before BUFFINGTON, McPHERSON, and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges.

BUFFINGTON Circuit Judge.

In the court below Wasil Matzok, a citizen of Russia, brought suit against the American Car & Foundry Company, a corporate citizen of New Jersey, and recovered a verdict for personal injuries.On entry of judgment thereon, the Car Company sued out this writ.

Pursuant to a rule of this court which provides that the brief shall contain 'a statement of the question or questions involved which shall be in the briefest and most general terms, without names, dates, amounts or particulars of any kind whatever'(rule 24,Sec. 2 (c), 224 F. xvii, 137 C.C.A. xvii;see alsorule 34 of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania), counsel have tersely summarized the questions involved as follows:

'(a) Whether, under the undisputed evidence, the court should have held, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury.

'(b) Whether, under the undisputed evidence, the court should have held, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

'(c) Whether, under all the evidence, the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant.'

These questions are based on the refusal of requests to charge, and as the several assignments show that in each of such requests there was a prayer for binding instructions to the jury, it will be seen that all of them finally center in the underlying question raised by the defendant's point:

'That under all the law and evidence in the case, the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.'

To settle this underlying question we turn to the facts.

The plaintiff, who was employed as an electric craneman in defendant's car factory, was injured when a steel wire rope on his crane broke as he was lifting steel car parts.The break of the cable caused a rebound, which in turn caused a certain part of the mechanism to escape from a hook from which it was suspended and crush the plaintiff's leg.The negligence charged was that the rope was unsafe and unfit for use.While the wire rope was new, the proofs were that such ropes were liable...