Peirce v. Lyden
| Decision Date | 07 November 1907 |
| Docket Number | 67,68. |
| Citation | 157 F. 552 |
| Parties | PEIRCE v. LYDEN (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Harriman & Fessenden, for plaintiff in error.
Dwight W. Morrow (A. S. Hamlin, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
These two cases arising out of personal injuries sustained by an infant, one by the father for loss of services, and the other by the infant, through his father as guardian, for the injuries, were by agreement tried together.
From the month of May, 1901, down to the time of the accident November 4th, the defendant was using certain derricks and hoisting machines, and also a dilapidated shed in a railroad yard at Pittsburgh, Pa. This yard covered about two acres of ground in the tenement-house district, near a public school attended by the infant plaintiff. In the shed, which was kept unlocked during the daytime, the defendant stored, among other things, barrels of oil with their heads knocked off, so that the oil could be dipped up. During the whole of this period boys had been in the habit of taking oil from the barrels in tomato cans and other receptacles, and lighting it on the ground or throwing it on fires they had started. The parties stipulated, among other things, as follows:
November 4th, about 4 p.m., after school, the infant plaintiff went with some 12 other boys into the yard where a fire was built on which the boys threw oil taken from the barrels in the shed. Some of the witnesses testified that the plaintiff was injured as the result of a can of oil being thrown on the fire by another boy, which exploded and covered him with burning oil. At least one witness testified that the boys were lighting the oil on the ground, and then running and jumping through it, and that the plaintiff was injured by oil which got on him while he was doing this.
The assignments of error relied on are that the trial judge should have directed a verdict for the defendant (1) because plaintiff has not shown that defendant is guilty of the violation of any duty owed by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Force v. Standard Silk Co.
...supra.' This case was recently cited and followed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit, opinion by Ward, C.J., in Peirce v. Lyden (decided November 7, 1907) 157 552. I can conceive of no more vicious doctrine than to hold that owners of mills in which are machinery and belt......
-
Empire District Electric Co. v. Harris
...& S. F. R. Co. v. Underwood, 194 F. 363 (C.C.A. 5); Snare & Triest Co. v. Friedman, 169 F. 1, 40 L.R.A.(N.S.) 367 (C.C.A. 2); Peirce v. Lyden, 157 F. 552 (C.C.A. 2); Thomason v. Southern R. Co., 113 F. 80 (C.C. A. 4); Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Ballentine, 84 F. 935 (C.C.A. 7). Als......
-
Ferrell v. Dixie Cotton Mills
...an unstable condition as would be likely to cause injury to such of these children as might come in contact therewith." Peirce v. Lyden, 157 F. 552, 85 C. C. A. 312, "Defendant maintained a shed in a railroad yard of about two acres near a schoolhouse in a city, in which he kept open barrel......
-
Hardy v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... 1006, 65 C.C.A. 59 (affirming (C.C.) 124 F. 283); ... Shellaberger v. Fisher, 143 F. 937, 75 C.C.A. 9, 5 ... L.R.A. (N.S.) 250 (8th Cir.); Peirce v. Lyden, 157 ... F. 552, 85 C.C.A. 312; Snare & Triest Co. v ... Friedman, 169 F. 1, 94 C.C.A. 369, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 367; ... Saint Louis & San ... ...