Bain v. Petroleum Iron Works Company
| Decision Date | 03 January 1910 |
| Docket Number | 159 |
| Citation | 75 A. 604,226 Pa. 414 |
| Parties | Bain v. Petroleum Iron Works Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued: October 25, 1909
Appeal, No. 159, Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1905, No. 410, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Thomas Bain v. Petroleum Iron Works Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before EVANS, J.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court, and by the previous report of the case in 223 Pa. 96.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,370. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
John C. Bane, with him B. G. Hughes and H. B. Hughes, for appellant.
H. Fred Mercer, for appellee.
Before FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
In reversing a former judgment in this case on an appeal by the defendant it was said: "The evidence in the case called for a submission to the jury of two questions of fact: first, was the plaintiff injured in consequence of negligence on the part of his employer? and, second, was the defendant the employer?" The ground of reversal was the failure to submit the second question: see 223 Pa. 96. At the second trial the main question was whether the plaintiff was employed by the defendant or by a man who had been its foreman but had a contract for doing the work on which the plaintiff was engaged, which on its face was an independent contract. The evidence on this subject was conflicting, but there was testimony from which the jury might infer that, if the contract set up had gone into effect, it had been abandoned, and that the work was being carried on by the defendant. The question could not have been withdrawn from the jury. It was submitted in such a manner as fully to protect every interest of the defendant. Where there is a reasonable doubt as to the facts or the inferences to be drawn from them, the case is necessarily for the jury: Howett v. R.R. Co., 166 Pa. 607.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial