Brennen v. Meadow Lands Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1916 |
| Docket Number | 139 |
| Citation | 252 Pa. 178,97 A. 183 |
| Parties | Brennen v. Meadow Lands Coal Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 22, 1915
Appeal, No. 139, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1913, No. 281, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Michael Brennen v. Meadow Lands Coal Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before SWEARINGEN J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict for plaintiff for $4,000 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were, inter alia, in refusing defendant's motions for a new trial and judgment n.o.v.
The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
Stephen Stone, of Stone & Stone, with him J. Thomas Hoffman, for appellant.
Meredith R. Marshall, with him Rody P. Marshall, for appellee.
Before BROWN, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The plaintiff sued in trespass to recover for personal injuries he secured a verdict, on which judgment was entered, and defendant has appealed.
On August 10, 1912, Michael Brennen, the plaintiff, an employee in the defendant's mine, was driving a mule hauling two loaded coal cars down a grade; the mule shied at a water pump, as an immediate result of which one of Brennen's legs was broken and subsequently had to be amputated. The animal in question, named "Pete," had a reputation for being generally vicious and shying. When the plaintiff went to work on the day of the accident, he reported to a Mr. Toward, the boss driver, who told him to use "Pete." The plaintiff replied that he had driven "Pete" once before and "couldn't work with him," that another mule named "Fritz," which he drove on the previous night, "had shied at the pump," and he did not want to take "Pete in there." Nevertheless, the boss directed him to take the mule designated, saying that "Pete would not shy up there as that was his regular haulage." At another place in his testimony, the plaintiff stated that the boss said "to take Pete in there, he would not shy, he is all right," and that, acting on these instructions, he took the mule as directed. When he came to the pump, however, the animal shied, and the accident happened.
It appears that Mr. Toward was employed by the superintendent of the mine, and was accountable directly to him for the work done by the mules and their drivers; that he had the power to employ and discharge the drivers; further, that the mine foreman did not exercise control over these employees, and in fact, had never given the plaintiff any orders. Mr. Toward stated that out of sixteen mules at the mine only four were safe, and "Pete" was not one of these; he said he had expressed the opinion that "Pete was...
To continue reading
Request your trial