Piper v. Cambria Iron Co.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1893 |
| Citation | 27 A. 939,78 Md. 249 |
| Parties | PIPER v. CAMBRIA IRON CO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court Allegany county.
Action by Ralph G. Piper against the Cambria Iron Company. There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before ROBINSON, C. J., and BRISCOE, McSHERRY, and FOWLER, JJ.
J. W. S. Cochrane and J. E. Macbeth, for appellant.
Ferd Williams, for appellee.
This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the appellee, the Cambria Iron Company, which is a Pennsylvania corporation, doing business in the city of Cumberland, in this state. The court instructed the jury that the plaintiff had offered no evidence legally sufficient to sustain his case, and directed a verdict for the defendant corporation. The propriety of this ruling is the only question involved, but it will be necessary to examine all the plaintiff's testimony in order to determine it The plaintiff was an employe of the defendant, and while engaged at work in the yard of its mill in Cumberland, on the 18th November, 1892, he, with three other men, was ordered (by whom it does not appear) to go into the mill for the purpose of unloading a car, to weigh the iron with which the car was laden upon the platform beside the car, and then to put it into another car, also standing near said platform in the mill, a short distance away. It appears that the floor of the car to be loaded was above the level of the platform, and was provided with a fall or footboard for the men to walk upon to and from the car. But the floor of the car which was to be unloaded was on a level with the platform, and the space between the platform and this car was 16 inches wide and 4 feet deep. There was no footboard over this last-named space of 16 inches, the only footboard owned by the defendant being placed at the other car which was to be loaded with the iron after it was weighed by the appellant and his fellow workmen. it was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of a very dark day, and on the inside of the mill it was so dark that no one could see whether there was a footboard in position at the car or not without stooping down to examine the place where it was supposed to be. The plaintiff, supposing there was a footboard there, without making any examination, and assuming the place to be safe, stepped into the car without injury, and while returning with his armful of iron, without looking, he stepped into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Dupree
...up in the usual and ordinary manner. White's Supp. Thompson, Negligence, § 4779; 73 S.W. 555; 160 Mass. 45; 4 Thompson, Negligence, § 4616; 78 Md. 249; 55 L. R. 908. W. A. Cunningham and Jones & Hamiter, for appellee. OPINION HILL, C. J. In brief, the case was this: Dupree was a car inspect......
-
Page v. New York Realty Co.
... ... Sec ... 4(b). * * * Tunnels, bridges, trestles; * * * iron or steel ... framed structures or parts of structures, electric light, or ... power plants, or ... 477, ... 87 P. 447; McCann v. Atlantic Mills, 20 R.I. 566, ... 40 A. 500; Piper v. Cambria Iron Co., 78 Md. 249, ... 27 A. 939; Geis v. Tennessee, C. I. & R. Co., 143 ... ...
-
Stewart & Co. v. Harman
... ... The same ... principle was also applied in the case of Piper v ... Cambria Iron Co., 78 Md. 249, 27 A. 939, where this ... court said: "While employers ... ...