Eberlin v. Philadelphia Electric Co
| Decision Date | 03 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 400 |
| Citation | 306 Pa. 239,159 A. 439 |
| Parties | Eberlin, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Electric Co |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 12, 1932
Appeal, No. 400, Jan. T., 1931, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1927, No. 13672, refusing to strike off nonsuit, in case of Harry Eberlin v. Phila Electric Co. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before HENRY, J., specially presiding.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Nonsuit refusal to take it off. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting it.
The order of the court below refusing to strike off the nonsuit is affirmed.
William S. Fenerty, with him Edward J. Darreff, for appellant.
John P. Connelly, for appellee.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY and DREW, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from the refusal of the court below to strike off the nonsuit entered in his action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been received from a contact with defendant's electric wires.
Plaintiff was seriously injured while engaged in hoisting shafting from the street into a third floor window of a building at Second and Westmoreland Streets, Philadelphia, using, for the purpose, a block and tackle extending two feet or more from a window on the fifth floor of the building. Located above the sidewalk, six and a half feet from the side of the building and parallel with it, 45 1/2 feet above the pavement, and about two feet above the level of the third floor ceiling, defendant owned and used a high power electric wire, installed under permit of the city electrical bureau. The shafting, about twelve feet long and two feet in diameter, was hoisted by horse power until in a position where plaintiff and a fellow workman at the third floor window were able to grasp the device and place it inside the building. As they took hold of the shaft to draw it into the building, there was a flash of fire and both were thrown to the floor, sustaining serious burns.
Plaintiff's statement of claim avers his injuries were caused by transmission of high voltage electric current from defendant's wire through the machinery being hoisted, and that the wire was erected in violation of state laws. The court below found and the record shows there was no direct evidence of the cause of the accident or to prove negligence in the condition and operation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial