Purdy v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1900 |
| Docket Number | 21 |
| Citation | 197 Pa. 257,47 A. 237 |
| Parties | Purdy v. Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 23, 1899
Appeal, No. 21, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1897, No. 5, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Samuel Purdy v. Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
At the trial the court entered a compulsory nonsuit, which it subsequently refused to take off.
Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Rody P Marshall, with him Thomas M. Marshall, for appellant. -- Where a master places the entire charge of his business or a distinct branch of it in the hands of an agent, exercising no discretion and no oversight, the neglect by the agent of ordinary care in supplying and maintaining suitable instrumentalities is a breach of the duty for which the master is liable: Mullan v. Philadelphia & Southern Mail Steamship Co., 78 Pa. 25; Frazier v. Penna. R. Co., 38 Pa. 104; Tissue v. B. & O. R.R. Co., 112 Pa. 91; Wagner v. H.W. Jayne Chemical Co., 147 Pa. 475.
Even though the injury in this case was one which might be considered improbable, yet that fact would not relieve the defendant company. It was responsible for "whatever consequences might in the nature of things occur from its neglect, although these consequences were such as could not by any ordinary prudence have been anticipated." The accident in this case was a consequence of the act of the defendant and it was responsible therefor: Oil City Gas Co. v. Robinson, 99 Pa. 1; Pittsburg City v. Grier, 21 Pa. 54; Raydure v. Knight, 2 W.N.C. 713; Bell v. McClintock, 9 Watts, 119.
This case is almost exactly parallel with Oil City Gas Co. v. Robinson, 99 Pa. 1, and Tissue v. B. & O.R.R. Co., 112 Pa. 91.
George B. Gordon, with him John Dalzell and William Scott, for appellee, cited Allison Mfg. Co. v. McCormick, 118 Pa. 519, Augerstein v. Jones, 139 Pa. 183, Melchert v. Smith Brewing Co., 140 Pa. 448, and Dooner v. Del. & Hudson Canal Co., 171 Pa. 581.
Before STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL, DEAN, FELL and BROWN, JJ.
The plaintiff instituted this suit for the purpose of obtaining compensation for an injury which he alleged he received through the negligence of the defendant company. On the trial of the case the court, adjudging the testimony introduced to establish his claim insufficient, entered a judgment of compulsory nonsuit. The plaintiff then moved the court in banc to take it off, which motion upon hearing had, was denied. This appeal was the result of the denial.
The plaintiff testified that he was a common laborer employed by the defendant company to work in its store room. The principal part of the work in which he was engaged was the receiving and arranging of its goods in accordance with instructions. On the day he received the injury of which he complains, he with a fellow workman, was employed in receiving castings brought in barrels from Newark to East Pittsburg. The barrels were obtained by the defendants' purchasing agent from Walsh The purpose of the purchasing agent was to obtain any kind of strong barrel that would hold from 500 to 700 pounds of castings. About 100 barrels of this description were purchased by the agent and used in the removal of the castings as above stated.
The injury received by the plaintiff was caused by an explosion of a barrel he and Dugan were inspecting for the purpose of discovering the number upon it. According to the plaintiff's own testimony the barrel was in a place "that was nearly all the time dark." To the question, "Did some person strike a match?" his answer was, "I couldn't say that he did." Duffy, however, testified that he saw Purdy and Dugan with their heads together down against the barrel, in a stooping position; that he saw Dugan take a match in his hand and light it, and that the lighting of the match was immediately followed by the explosion. This testimony is uncontradicted and no one questions the accuracy of it. There is no testimony in the case which shows that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial