Peterson v. Feltenberger

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Citation: 156 A. 621,102 Pa.Super.Ct. 6
• Parties: PETERSON v. FELTENBERGER.
• Decision Date: 31 December 1930

156 A. 621
102 Pa.Super.Ct. 6

PETERSON
v.
FELTENBERGER.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Dec. 31, 1930.

156 A. 622

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County; James Gay Gordon, Jr., Judge.

Action by William Peterson against William F. Feltenberger. From a judgment in favor of defendant notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before TREXLER, P. J., and KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, and WHITMORE, JJ.

George H. Detweiler and Wm. W. Mentzinger, Jr., both of Philadelphia, for appellant.

L. M. C. Smith and Robert T. McCracken, both of Philadelphia, for appellee.

WHITMORE, J.

William Peterson, the plaintiff, appellant, was employed as a laborer by the Manhattan Fire Proof in the construction of the Lewis Tower Building at 1421 Locust street, Philadelphia. John Jenkins was at the same time and place employed as a bridgeman by William F. Feltenberger, the defendant. During the construction, access from one floor to another was by means of ladders. On April 10, 1929, about 2 o'clock p. m., the plaintiff attempted to ascend the ladder from the ground floor to the second floor, and at the same time Jenkins was descending the ladder from the third floor to the second floor, carrying on his right shoulder a reamer weighing about 39 pounds. When Jenkins was about halfway between the second and third floors his right foot slipped and he fell through the opening between the first and second floors, struck Peterson, who was on the ladder about half way between the first and second floors, knocking the latter to the ground. He sustained serious injuries. The testimony discloses that it had been raining up to about one hour of the time of the accident and that the rungs of the ladder were slippery. The court submitted the case to the jury, who found for the plaintiff, and later entered judgment n. o. v. in favor of the defendant.

The appellant assigns as error: (1) The action of the court in entering judgment n. o. v., (2) exclusion of certain testimony, (3) discharging plaintiff's rule for a new trial, and (4) entering judgment for defendant.

The only negligence complained of by the appellant, and which he undertook to establish by testimony, related to an alleged general custom of contractors of moving reamers and similar implements from one floor to another by means of a hoist or rope, and not by carrying it on the shoulder; that the method employed by Jenkins was unusual and more dangerous than the ordinary...