Cunningham v. Frey
| Decision Date | 22 June 1909 |
| Parties | Cunningham <I>v.</I> Frey, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MITCHELL, C. J., FELL, BROWN, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ. Affirmed.
J. S. Black, with him V. K. Keesey, for appellants.—The evidence as to the cause of the fall of the elevator, and therefore as to the cause of the injury complained of being undisputed, the question of proximate cause became one of law for the determination of the court: Douglass v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 209 Pa. 128; West Mahanoy Twp. v. Watson, 116 Pa. 344; Hoag v. Lake Shore R. R. Co., 85 Pa. 293; Herr et ux. v. Lebanon City, 149 Pa. 222; Ford v. Anderson, 139 Pa. 261; Simpson v. Pittsburg Locomotive Works, 139 Pa. 245; Ballard v. N. Y. C., etc., R. R. Co., 126 Pa. 141; Erie & W. V. R. Co. v. Smith, 125 Pa. 259; Kepner v. Harrisburg Traction Co., 183 Pa. 24; Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co. v. Schertle, 97 Pa. 450; Rotsell v. Warren Bro., 10 Pa. Superior Ct. 283; Hayes v. R. R. Co., 195 Pa. 184.
Henry C. Niles, with him William B. Gemmill, for appellee.— The case was for the jury: Gerding v. Standard Pressed Steel Co., 220 Pa. 229; Penna. R. R. Co. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. 60; Schiglizzo v. Dunn, 211 Pa. 253; Hughes v. Mfg. Co., 214 Pa. 282; McGeehan v. Hughes, 217 Pa. 121; Penna. R. R. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. 373; Quinlan v. Philadelphia, 205 Pa. 309; Cameron v. Traction Co., 216 Pa. 191; Thomas v. Cent. R. R. Co. of New Jersey, 194 Pa. 511; Gudfelder v. R. R. Co., 207 Pa. 629; Cohn v. May, 210 Pa. 615; Dannenhower v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 218 Pa. 216; Provident Life & Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, 202 Pa. 78; Kuntz v. R. R. Co., 206 Pa. 162; Medis v. Bentley, 216 Pa. 324; Com. v. Razmus, 210 Pa. 609; Kyle v. Southern E. L. & P. Co., 174 Pa. 570; Bolton v. Traction Co., 219 Pa. 83.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE STEWART, June 22, 1909:
A freight elevator which defendants used in their warehouse became lodged on the third floor of the building, in consequence of its being pushed so far out of its true place that the floor of the elevator rested to some extent on the floor of the building. Defendants' foreman called upon the plaintiff to assist in righting it. Together they released the elevator, but it failed to respond. To ascertain the cause, they went to the floor below to examine the pulleys and the drum on which the cable was wound. They found that the cable was partially unwound and hanging down in a loop. The foreman directed the plaintiff to pass back of some boxes which interfered with the full view of the drum, and see if the drum had not been revolving the wrong way. When in a position to see, the plaintiff passed his hand through the loop to catch one of the cables, in order to see if the cables were twisted. As he did so the elevator suddenly fell from the floor above, with the result that the loop of the cable was drawn up, catching plaintiff under his extended arm and carrying him violently against the drum. The accident can only remotely be attributed to the lodging of the elevator on the third floor. If such lodging was the result of negligence, that particular negligence had spent its force without injury to anyone, for the elevator had been returned to its proper place. The immediate, proximate cause of the accident was the sudden and unexpected fall of the elevator. Was this due in any degree to the negligence of the defendants? The evidence fully warranted the inference that the elevator fell because the clamps or clutches in the uprights at either side of the elevator failed to do what was expected of them. There was no evidence of interference from outside except as we shall refer to later on. While great latitude was allowed in admitting testimony as to the condition of the elevator for a period before the happening of the accident and the difficulties attending its operation, this evidence was not without legitimate bearing upon the immediate cause, and therefore could not properly have been excluded. If there was no outside interference it is clear that the safety clamps or clutches failed to work, either because they were defective in themselves, or because the elevator was not properly adjusted with respect to them or they to it. Plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that the elevator was old, and that from continued use, or for other reason, was loose in its bearings, and "wabbled," which we take to be but another way of saying that it played to either side, that it was not close fitting against the uprights in which were placed the clamps and clutches. This was the theory advanced by the plaintiff, and unquestionably it found strong support in the evidence. If outside interference be excluded, every other cause would seem to be eliminated. Whether negligence was chargeable to the defendants in connection therewith was a question wholly for the jury, and it was submitted to them in a fair and impartial manner. The plaintiff testified that a few days before the accident, one of the defendants had assured him and other employees that the elevator could not fall...
To continue reading
Request your trial