McGuigan v. Beatty

• Decision Date: 26 May 1898
• Docket Number: 46
• Parties: Patrick McGuigan v. Robert Beatty, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

40 A. 490

186 Pa. 329

Patrick McGuigan v. Robert Beatty, Appellant

No. 46

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 26, 1898

Argued March 28, 1898

Appeal, No. 46, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 1341, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before BREGY, J.

At the trial it appeared that on January 9, 1896, plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendant, was injured by the falling of an elevator weight in defendant's building.

Plaintiff's duties in defendant's factory required him to take a truck loaded with cans containing yarn, etc., from the first floor to the second floor and vice versa, by means of a freight elevator. He worked only on these two floors; he had never been on the fourth floor. The elevator worked through a shaft extending from the first to the fifth floor of the factory. On each floor was an automatic gate which opened as the elevator approached it. It was opened by means of a heavy iron weight of thirty pounds, connected with the gate by a rope.

Other facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court charged in part as follows:

[I see nothing in this case which would make this man guilty of contributory negligence.] The question is, was his employer guilty of any negligence? [It appears a weight was held by a rope, the weight being a counterweight to the elevator door or gate that went up and down with the elevator, and the rope broke and the weight fell by reason of the breaking of the rope, and that, even if the rope did break the weight would not have fallen, if there had been a block underneath to prevent it from falling.] You have heard a description of the whole matter. [It is the duty of an employer to keep an eye on things like ropes that are in constant use over pulleys or running through a groove, and which are apt to break, and if the breaking of this rope was caused by constant wear -- a gradual wearing of the rope -- and had gotten into such a condition that the inspection or observation that a man ought to make about his place to see whether things were in order would disclose its condition, then it would be negligence on the part of the employer in not putting a good rope on that weight to prevent an accident occurring.] If, on the other hand, the rope suddenly broke, without having any appearance before that it would break, that of course, would be a thing which might or would relieve an employer from the charge of negligence. [As to the question of whether or not the block ought to have been there -- you have heard the testimony in the case, and you must determine whether or not it was negligence in not having a block there, in not having the block in the position some of the witnesses think it should have been.] Taking everything into consideration, you must state whether you believe the employer was negligent -- did he do his duty? If he did, he is not negligent -- if he did not, he is negligent.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $4,500. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were (1-4) above instructions, quoting them.

Judgment affirmed.

J. Howard Gendell, for appellant, cited Reese v. Clark, 146 Pa. 465; Huey v. Gahlenbeck, 121 Pa. 238; Phila. & R.R. Co. v. Schertle, 97 Pa. 450; R.R. v. Hughes, 119 Pa. 301; Baker v. R.R., 95 Pa. 215; Augerstein v. Jones, 139 Pa. 183.

John M. Patterson and William F. Meyers, for appellee, cited O'Toole v. Post Printing, etc., Co., 179 Pa. 271; Phila. & R.R. Co. v. Huber, 128 Pa. 63; Dixey v. Traction Co., 180 Pa. 401; Frick v. Barbour, 64 Pa. 120; Penna. R.R. v. White, 88 Pa. 327; Penna. R.R. v. Werner, 89 Pa. 59; Wilson v. Penna. R. Co., 177 Pa. 503; Bier v. Standard Mfg. Co., 130 Pa. 446; Bennett v. Glass Co., 158 Pa. 120; Tissue v. R.R., 112 Pa. 91; Rummell v. Dilworth, 111 Pa. 343; Green & Coates Pass. Ry. v. Bresmer, 97 Pa. 103; Penna. & N.Y. Canal & R.R. Co. v. Mason, 109 Pa. 296; West Chester, etc., R.R. v. McElwee, 67 Pa. 311; McCombs v. Ry., 130 Pa. 182; O'Donnell v. Allegheny Valley R.R., 59 Pa. 248.

Before GREEN, WILLIAMS, MITCHELL, DEAN and FELL, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE GREEN:

There is certainly no evidence on this record showing any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and the learned court below was not in error in so stating to the jury. This leaves open only the question of negligence on the part of the defendant, for which he would, or might be liable to the plaintiff. That question was left to the jury, and we do not see how it could have been taken from them. The plaintiff being at the elevator in the discharge of his duty, put his hand upon it in order to ask up the shaft if there was anything there, and was suddenly struck on the head by a falling object. He was thrown to the floor, and his head was badly cut, and discharged blood freely. His injuries were of a serious nature, and he was laid up for many weeks, under treatment. A witness who was present a very few minutes after the accident occurred, testified that he saw, at the bottom of the elevator well, a heavy iron weight which was stained with blood, having a piece of broken rope attached to it. By other testimony it was shown that this weight had been attached to a gate or door on the fourth floor of the building, which opened automatically as the elevator approached...