Madara v. Pottsville Iron & Steel Co.
Decision Date | 26 February 1894 |
Docket Number | 249 |
Citation | 28 A. 639,160 Pa. 109 |
Parties | Madara v. Pottsville Iron & Steel Co., Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 13, 1894
Appeal, No. 249, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1891, No. 193, on verdict for plaintiff, Nicholas C. Madara. Affirmed.
Trespass for death of plaintiff's minor son.
At the trial, before WEIDMAN, J., it appeared that, on Jan 7, 1891 plaintiff's son, aged eighteen, was fatally injured while working in defendant's mill on a dangerously narrow platform. The platform was part of a tramway used to support coal ashes. The tramway consisted of two endless moving wire ropes to which iron buckets were fastened. It was the duty of the deceased to stand on the platform, disconnect the bucket and push it around a curve, and regrip it to the rope which would carry it on. The evidence tended to show that the platform was dangerous because of the absence of guard rails etc.
Deceased was found on the ground with gearing on him.
The court charged in part as follows:
"" [3]
Plaintiff's point was as follows:
"1. If the jury find the defendant company guilty of negligence, then Madara, plaintiff, would be entitled to recover, not only the amount his boy could have earned up to his arriving at the age of twenty-one years, but also for the time lost by plaintiff by reason of the accident, as well as funeral expenses to which he was put by reason of the accident. Answer: If the jury believe that the platform where the deceased worked was dangerous, and the father of the deceased (the son taking no part in the decision) had complained to George Skidmore, his boss, who was in charge of the work and machinery, of the danger, and was induced to remain temporarily at his employment by the promise of said Skidmore that he would get a man and take him (the deceased) right down, and the deceased then met his death within twenty minutes; then if the jury believe that, though there was no visible defect in the machinery or structure, other than that the platform was too narrow to be safe, and that this defect occasioned the death of the plaintiff's son, then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the amount measured by the evidence in the case, which the deceased would probably have earned up to the time of arriving at the age of twenty-one years, less the cost of maintenance. He cannot recover in this case for funeral expenses, because there is no proof that they were incurred or paid by the father, and for his own loss of time he can only recover loss of time actually proved.]" [4]
Defendant's points were among others as follows:
"2. If there be any negligence on the part of the defendant its liability arises...
To continue reading
Request your trial