Bruce v. Penn Bridge Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Bruce v. Penn Bridge Co.

47 A. 354, 197 Pa. 439, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 759

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 31, 1900

DocketAppeal, No. 150

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A. 354 (Bruce v. Penn Bridge Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruce v. Penn Bridge Co., 47 A. 354, 197 Pa. 439, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 759 (Pa. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

On the trial of this case the plaintiff’s only contention was that Weigle was an incompetent workman and that his incompetency was, or should have been, known to the defendant. No act of incompetency on the part of Weigle previous to the act complained of was shown, and it was not claimed prior to that time that any incompetency on his part was suggested or known to the defendant. All of his previous acts evinced care on his part, and could not well be considered as proof of incompetency in the performance of the duties pertaining to the work to which he was called. It follows from the evidence in the case that the defendant was not properly chargeable with negligence in employing him. That he used more than ordinary care in the performance of the work to which he was assigned was no evidence of incompetency. Nor did such care at any'time impose additional liability on the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cueiam,

On the trial of this case the plaintiff’s only contention was that Weigle was an incompetent workman and that his incompetency was, or should have been, known to the defendant. No act of incompetency on the part of Weigle previous to the act complained of was shown, and it was not claimed prior to that time that any incompetency on his part was suggested or known to the defendant. All of his previous acts evinced care on his part, and could not well be considered as proof of incompetency in the performance of the duties pertaining to the work to which he was called. It follows from the evidence in the case that the defendant was not properly chargeable with negligence in employing him. That he used more than ordinary care in the performance of the work to which he was assigned was no evidence of incompetency. Nor did such care at any'time impose additional liability on the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A. 354, 197 Pa. 439, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-v-penn-bridge-co-pa-1900.