Buckley v. Brown Hoisting Machinery Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Buckley v. Brown Hoisting Machinery Co.

93 A. 825, 248 Pa. 63, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 512

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 18, 1915

DocketAppeal, No. 222

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A. 825 (Buckley v. Brown Hoisting Machinery 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

Buckley v. Brown Hoisting Machinery Co., 93 A. 825, 248 Pa. 63, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 512 (Pa. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The evidence in this case clearly shows that the injury for which plaintiff sought to recover damages, was the result of an accident, pure and simple. The combined strength of three men, pulling upon a rope, was more effective than they anticipated, and a piece of steel plate was swung with too much force against another plate, which was thereby driven from its base, causing the injury. The force which they applied, was miscalculated by the men doing the work. For this their employer, the defendant company, was in no wise responsible. The court below was fully justified in entering judgment for the defendant, non obstante veredicto, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The evidence in this case clearly shows that the injury for which plaintiff sought to recover damages, was the result of an accident, pure and simple. The combined strength of three men, pulling upon a rope, was more effective than they anticipated, and a piece of steel plate was swung with too much force against another plate, which was thereby driven from its base, causing the injury. The force which they applied, was miscalculated by the men doing the work. For this their employer, the defendant company, was in no wise responsible. The court below was fully justified in entering judgment for the defendant, non obstante veredicto, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A. 825, 248 Pa. 63, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-brown-hoisting-machinery-co-pa-1915.