Clark v. Diamond State Steel Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Clark v. Diamond State Steel Co.

47 A. 1014, 18 Del. 522, 2 Penne. 522, 1900 Del. LEXIS 24

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedJune 5, 1900

DocketAction on the Case No. 56

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A. 1014 (Clark v. Diamond State Steel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Diamond State Steel Co., 47 A. 1014, 18 Del. 522, 2 Penne. 522, 1900 Del. LEXIS 24 (Del. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

The declaration originally consisted of five counts. The first count was withdrawn. The fifth count, to which a demurrer was filed, was in substance as follows: That the defendant was and is a corporation of the State of Delaware, engaged in operating a certain shop in the City of Wilmington,. Delaware, and being so engaged as aforesaid employed the said plaintiff to work upon a certain machine, known as a header, in its said shop; that said defendant “negligently and carelessly omitted to provide for the repair and keeping in repair of a certain machine known as a header, used by it in its said shop, upon which said machine the said plaintiff was, in the exercise of due care and caution on his part, on the fifteenth day of September, A. D. 1899, at New Castle County aforesaid, employed in his occupation aforesaid, whereby the said machine then and there became and was dangerous, unsafe and improper, and was well known to the said defendant to be so dangerous, unsafe and improper, and unknown to the said plaintiff, whereby by reason of the negligence and carelessness aforesaid, the said machine closed upon the left arm of the said plaintiff”, and thereby the said plaintiff was injured, etc.

The demurrer filed to the above count was as follows: “That it is not alleged in said count in what respect the defendant omitted to provide for the repair and keeping in repair the said machine in said count mentioned.”

Demurrer sustained.

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

The declaration originally consisted of five counts. The first count was withdrawn. The fifth count, to which a demurrer was filed, was in substance as follows: That the defendant was and is a corporation of the State of Delaware, engaged in operating a certain shop in the City of Wilmington,. Delaware, and being so engaged as aforesaid employed the said plaintiff to work upon a certain machine, known as a header, in its said shop; that said defendant “negligently and carelessly omitted to provide for the repair and keeping in repair of a certain machine known as a header, used by it in its said shop, upon which said machine the said plaintiff was, in the exercise of due care and caution on his part, on the fifteenth day of September, A. D. 1899, at New Castle County aforesaid, employed in his occupation aforesaid, whereby the said machine then and there became and was dangerous, unsafe and improper, and was well known to the said defendant to be so dangerous, unsafe and improper, and unknown to the said plaintiff, whereby by reason of the negligence and carelessness aforesaid, the said machine closed upon the left arm of the said plaintiff”, and thereby the said plaintiff was injured, etc.

The demurrer filed to the above count was as follows: “That it is not alleged in said count in what respect the defendant omitted to provide for the repair and keeping in repair the said machine in said count mentioned.”

Demurrer sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A. 1014, 18 Del. 522, 2 Penne. 522, 1900 Del. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-diamond-state-steel-co-delsuperct-1900.