Rooney v. Carson

• Decision Date: 02 April 1894
• Docket Number: 176
• Citation: 28 A. 996,161 Pa. 26
• Parties: Rooney, Appellant, v. Carson et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

28 A. 996

161 Pa. 26

Rooney, Appellant, v. Carson et al

No. 176

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 2, 1894

Argued March 21, 1894

Appeal, No. 176, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, Hugh Rooney from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1890, No 273, entering nonsuit in favor of defendants, George Carson and George D. Irwin, trading as Carson & Irwin. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before BIDDLE, J.

At the trial it appeared that, on Nov. 29, 1889, plaintiff was injured in defendant's mill. At the time of the accident defendants were engaged in moving from one mill to another, and were making alterations in the latter. Plaintiff had, prior to this, worked in the old mill as a weaver and loom fixer, but had been laid off until the new mill started up, and was afterwards employed to assist in moving and making alterations. On the day before the accident, one of the defendants directed his son, Walter Carson, a young man about eighteen years of age, to take down some shafting in the mill. On the day of the accident while plaintiff was on his knees on the floor fixing a loom, the young man went up a ladder near where plaintiff was working, and uncoupled the shafting, which fell from his grasp, and dropped down upon plaintiff's arm, crushing it. It appeared that young Carson had worked with plaintiff in the old mill as a weaver, and that for three months preceding the accident he had been foreman of the mill.

The court entered a compulsory nonsuit, and subsequently refused to take it off.

Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Thomas A. Fahy, for appellant.

A. S. L. Shields, for appellee, not heard.

Before STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, McCOLLUM, DEAN and FELL, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

At the time of the accident, defendants were engaged in moving from one mill to another in which alterations were then being made. Sometime prior thereto, plaintiff worked in the old mill as a weaver, but had been "laid off" until the new mill "started up." Afterwards he was employed to assist in moving and making alterations, and while so engaged was injured. As was said in Wannamaker v Burke, 111 Pa. 423, it would be unreasonable to hold defendants "to the same degree of strictness during alterations to the building as might be required after such alterations were completed." When plaintiff undertook to assist in moving, etc., he assumed the increased risk incident...