O'Hara v. Brown Hoisting Mach. Co.
Citation | 171 F. 394 |
Decision Date | 04 May 1909 |
Docket Number | 13. |
Parties | O'HARA v. BROWN HOISTING MACH. CO. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
T Mercer Morton, for plaintiff in error.
David Reed, for defendant in error.
Before GRAY and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District judge.
In this case John O'Hara seeks by writ of error to reverse a judgment rendered against him by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in an action of trespass brought by him against the Brown Hoisting Machine Company, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. The judgment was entered on a verdict for the defendant returned by direction of the court and the substantial question raised by the assignments of error is whether the court erred in directing under the pleadings and evidence such verdict. O'Hara in his statement of claim, among other things, alleged as follows:
That the plaintiff lost an eye through its penetration by a minute piece of steel detached from the face of the sledge or maul when, in the hands of another workman, it struck a chisel held by the plaintiff, is beyond doubt. No element of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, or of negligence on the part of his fellow-servant who used the sledge, is presented in the case.
The only substantial question with which we have to deal is whether the defendant was guilty of actionable negligence in not ascertaining the imperfection in the sledge and preventing its use before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Gray
...rule has been otherwise stated or applied, for instance, as relieving the master altogether of the duty of inspection, as in O'Hara v. Brown (C. C. A.) 171 F. 394; Hedicke v. Highland Springs Co., 185 Minn. 79, 239 N. W. 896; Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. McCrummen, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 594, 13......
- Wausau Southern Lumber Co. v. Cooley
-
Sterling v. Parker-Washington Company
......Duran, 134 P. 876; Railroad. v. Johnson, 207 F. 521; O'Hara v. Mach. Co., 171 F. 394; Herricks v. Railroad, 257 Ill. 264. (f) The ......
-
Jacob v. City of New York
...for defects because the servant's opportunity for ascertaining such defects is equal to or greater than the master's. O'Hara v. Brown Hoisting Mach. Co., 3 Cir., 171 F. 394; Miller v. Erie R.R. Co., 21 App.Div. 45, 47 N.Y.S. 285; 2 Agency A.L.I. § 503(d). Petitioner inspected the wrench, fo......