Edmundson v. Monongahela Light & Power Co.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1909 |
| Docket Number | 81 |
| Parties | Edmundson, Appellant, v. Monongahela Light & Power Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 20, 1908
Appeal, No. 81, Oct. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 834, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Levi H. Edmundson v Monongahela Light & Power Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before BROWN, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.
Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Geo. A. Johnson, with him John F. Edmundson, for appellant, cited: Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. 332; Kay v. R.R. Co., 65 Pa. 269.
David A. Reed, of Reed, Smith, Shaw & Beal, for appellee, cited: Gillis v. Penna. R.R. Co., 59 Pa. 129; Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. 74; Moore v. R.R. Co., 99 Pa. 301; Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Pa. 144; R.R. Co. v. Schwindling, 101 Pa. 258; Thompson v. B. & O.R.R. Co., 218 Pa. 444; MacLean v. Burnham, 19 W.N.C. 53.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER and ELKIN, JJ.
The plaintiff received his injuries by coming in contact with a heavily charged piece of machinery in the transformer room of the defendant's power plant, where he had gone with a view to purchase some old sheet iron or junk which a day or two previous he had seen stacked somewhere in the yard. He had not learned through any public announcement made by the company, nor through anyone competent to speak for it, that this material was for sale. Inquiring of some workmen whom he saw employed about the place, he was told that if he wanted to do business, he would have to see the superintendent. On the day of the accident, meeting a workman some distance from the premises, he learned from him that the superintendent was then at the plant and he could see him if he went promptly. The company had been making changes in its building and machinery, and at this particular time the wall of the building next to the street and about what had been a door for general entrance, had been taken down for a distance of some twenty-five feet. A considerable part of the room in which plaintiff was injured was thus exposed to the street. Through this opening the plaintiff entered and advanced some five or six feet to where the superintendent was standing, engaged at the time in inspecting a transformer. Addressing the superintendent plaintiff said, "I would like to speak to you." The superintendent replied, "Wait a minute." While waiting, one of the men there employed was about to pass between the plaintiff and the superintendent, when the plaintiff, to increase the distance between them, retreated a step or two without looking where he was going, and encountered the machinery from which he received the current that injured him. With these facts shown at the trial and nothing beyond, a nonsuit was directed. The motion to take off the nonsuit was refused and this appeal results.
It is contended by counsel for appellant that the plaintiff in entering the transformer room of defendant, was not an intruder or a mere licensee, but that he entered on invitation of the defendant; and once having entered was invited to remain. Under such conditions as here stated unquestionably a duty would have rested on the defendant, to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to the plaintiff while he was on the premises. But does the evidence exhibit any such conditions? The plaintiff does not pretend that he entered the transformer room supposing it was the place where the defendant transacted its business with its patrons or customers. He entered it to see the superintendent who he was told by someone was then there. His case...
To continue reading
Request your trial