Worth Bros Co. v. Kallas
| Decision Date | 03 June 1908 |
| Docket Number | 22. |
| Citation | 162 F. 306 |
| Parties | WORTH BROS. CO. v. KALLAS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Thomas Leaming, for plaintiff in error.
Edward D. Mitchell, for defendant in error.
Before DALLAS, GRAY, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges.
This was an action to recover for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff below, the defendant here, which he alleged was caused by negligence of the defendant below, the plaintiff here. There is no complaint of any action of the court during the trial, or of its charge to the jury. The sole question is whether a verdict for the defendant should not have been directed, or a judgment non obstante veredicto have been entered in its favor, and the facts involved in that question are not controverted.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant. He was not a painter by trade, but he was set to painting the outside of the roof of the defendant's iron mill at Coatesville, Pa. He was engaged at this work for three days, and then was told to do some painting inside of the building. He had not been in the building before, and was in it but a very short time when the accident in question occurred. It was a very large building. There was some exhaust steam in it, and it contained heavy machinery which was in noisy operation. The plaintiff began painting its sides, which were of corrugated iron, at a point about 20 feet above the ground. He stood, as directed by the foreman, with one foot on an angle iron and with the other foot on the lower flange of a horizontal steel I-beam. His feet were about 18 inches apart, and when he was painting below the level at which he was standing he reached down between his feet. The I-beam referred to was about 3 feet high, and on its top was one of the rails of a track upon which traveled an electrically operated crane. This crane spanned the mill, and was supported on the other side by a similar rail about 73 feet distant from the rail first mentioned. It traversed the entire building, which was about 300 feet in length. The plaintiff had been given no information or instruction respecting it. It was at a point quite distant from him when he began to work inside of the building, and it was started on its first trip of that day without notice to him. He, as has been stated, painted below as well as above the level at which he was standing; and while he was thus painting and in a 'squatting attitude' the crane ran over his left arm, which, but a moment before, he had thrown over the rail to support himself.
The plaintiff in error has contended that 'there was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchinson v. Richmond Safety Gate Co.
... ... Electric Co. v. Hanselman, 136 F. 564; Eckman v ... Lauer, 67 Minn. 221; Worth Bros. v. Kallas, 162 ... F. 306. (4) It was the duty of defendant to provide a ... watchman, or ... ...
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Massey
...minds might draw different conclusions upon the question, it is one for the jury. Johnson v. Southern, etc., R. Co., 97 P. 521; Worth v. Kallas, 162 F. 306; Hilgar v. Walla, 97 P. 498; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Byrum, 38 N.E. 578; Union, etc., R. Co. v. Porter, 56 N.W. 808; Terre Haute, etc.......
-
Sans Bois Coal Co. v. Janeway
... ... questions are properly for the jury." Worth Bros ... Co. v. Kallas (C. C. A.) 162 F. 306. The foregoing case ... is of more than passing ... ...
-
Sans Bois Coal Co. v. Janeway
...respecting the question of negligence or contributory negligence, such questions are properly for the jury." (Worth Bros. Co. v. Kallas [C. C. A.] 162 F. 306.) ¶10 The foregoing case is of more than passing interest, on account of its discussion of the principles involved in the first two a......